Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
OKC lead PHX lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHX 2P — 3P —
OKC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Brooks Hard 4/16 -4.8
Goodwin 6/12 +1.6
Bouyea 6/9 +4.8
Allen Hard 3/9 +0.3
Ighodaro Open 3/7 -2.5
O'Neale 2/7 -4.7
Fleming 3/5 +1.9
Williams Open 2/5 -1.6
Gillespie 1/5 -2.8
Dunn 2/4 -1.1

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 11/15 +9.1
Holmgren 9/13 +7.7
Williams Hard 5/8 +3.0
Dort Hard 4/8 +2.7
Wiggins Hard 2/7 -1.1
Williams Hard 2/7 -1.9
Dieng Hard 4/6 +5.8
Carlson Open 5/5 +4.3
Wallace Open 4/5 +2.6
Mitchell Hard 3/5 +2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
OKC
33/84 Field Goals 52/88
39.3% Field Goal % 59.1%
10/31 3-Pointers 22/40
32.3% 3-Point % 55.0%
13/16 Free Throws 12/13
81.2% Free Throw % 92.3%
48.9% True Shooting % 73.6%
43 Total Rebounds 48
7 Offensive 6
30 Defensive 37
24 Assists 32
1.14 Assist/TO Ratio 2.13
20 Turnovers 14
12 Steals 14
2 Blocks 7
13 Fouls 14
42 Points in Paint 50
20 Fast Break Pts 18
20 Points off TOs 34
6 Second Chance Pts 9
48 Bench Points 50
0 Largest Lead 53
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Chet Holmgren
24 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 24.6 MIN
+27.89
2
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
28 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 26.8 MIN
+27.07
3
Cason Wallace
9 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 18.6 MIN
+18.03
4
Jamaree Bouyea
14 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 28.2 MIN
+14.46
5
Branden Carlson
11 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 12.0 MIN
+12.5
6
Jalen Williams
15 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 22.8 MIN
+12.17
7
Ajay Mitchell
9 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 18.7 MIN
+12.09
8
Jordan Goodwin
15 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 18.9 MIN
+11.68
9
Mark Williams
9 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 19.0 MIN
+9.91
10
Ousmane Dieng
11 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 12.0 MIN
+9.49
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:12 OKC shot clock Team TURNOVER 89–138
Q4 0:32 C. Youngblood REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 89–138
Q4 0:35 MISS N. Hayes-Davis 24' 3PT 89–138
Q4 0:41 C. Youngblood kicked ball VIOLATION 89–138
Q4 0:52 K. Maluach REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 89–138
Q4 0:58 MISS O. Dieng 26' 3PT 89–138
Q4 0:59 J. Williams REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 89–138
Q4 1:02 MISS K. Williams 19' step back Shot 89–138
Q4 1:20 J. Bouyea running Layup (14 PTS) (O. Ighodaro 3 AST) 89–138
Q4 1:23 K. Maluach REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 87–138
Q4 1:25 MISS O. Dieng driving Layup 87–138
Q4 1:35 K. Maluach 7' floating Jump Shot (2 PTS) (J. Bouyea 6 AST) 87–138
Q4 1:47 O. Dieng 32' 3PT step back (11 PTS) 85–138
Q4 2:00 J. Williams REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 85–135
Q4 2:03 MISS C. Youngblood 27' pullup 3PT 85–135

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
28
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+27.6

Surgical precision on offense drove an astronomical box rating (+21.2). Strong defensive metrics (+6.5) proved he was highly engaged on both ends, systematically dismantling his matchups.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +68.1
+/- +43
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Chet Holmgren 24.6m
24
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+29.9

Absolute dominance on both ends was highlighted by a staggering defensive rating (+11.0) that completely deterred interior challenges. Flawless perimeter execution and elite shot-making compounded the massive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +59.3
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +20.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jalen Williams 22.8m
15
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.8

Relentless hustle plays (+4.2) and high-level defensive activity set the tone for this outing. Efficient shot selection ensured that his two-way energy translated directly into positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +59.3
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 21.7m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

A significant scoring bump fueled by efficient perimeter shooting drove a strong box rating. However, relatively muted defensive metrics (+1.0) kept his overall impact from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +74.5
+/- +38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 18.6m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.8

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+9.2) and elite hustle metrics (+4.5) defined this stellar performance. He punished defensive rotations by maximizing his offensive touches with near-perfect efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +85.7
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Snapping a four-game streak of high-efficiency shooting, a pattern of clanked jumpers dragged his rating into the red. Elite hustle metrics (+4.7) couldn't salvage the damage done by the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.2

Passing up open looks stalled offensive flow during his minutes, leading to a severe drop in scoring. Solid defensive positioning couldn't salvage the lack of offensive assertiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

High-level defensive execution (+5.8) and active hustle plays (+3.1) anchored a strong two-way shift. Efficient finishing on his limited attempts ensured he maximized his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Poor shot selection and a pattern of missed perimeter looks heavily weighed down his overall impact. Marginal defensive contributions weren't enough to offset the offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 12.8m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Elite defensive disruption (+7.2) and relentless hustle completely overshadowed a quiet offensive night. His ability to blow up opposing actions made him a net positive despite the lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Lethal execution from beyond the arc drove a strong box rating despite a dip in his usual overall volume. The lack of defensive impact (+0.7) was easily masked by his highly efficient perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +56.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

A shocking offensive explosion defined this flawless shooting performance. Capitalizing on every single touch generated massive value in a short burst of playing time.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +56.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Negative defensive metrics (-0.5) and a lack of hustle plays doomed this brief stint. Halving his usual scoring output while failing to generate stops made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Royce O'Neale 26.4m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.8

Cratering offensive gravity defined this performance, as his inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off. Elite defensive metrics (+5.0) were entirely wasted by the empty possessions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Dillon Brooks 26.3m
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

A pattern of forced, low-quality looks—resulting in 12 missed shots—completely cratered his overall impact. The scoring bump was purely a mirage of volume that masked severe offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -74.6
+/- -47
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+9.5) was completely undone by a pattern of offensive ineptitude. Generating zero perimeter gravity allowed the opposition to clog the paint, stalling the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Grayson Allen 21.9m
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

A brutal stretch of perimeter bricklaying dragged his rating into the red. The sharp drop in scoring efficiency negated his otherwise solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -78.9
+/- -41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 19.0m
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Interior deterrence set the tone during his shift, anchoring a highly positive defensive rating (+5.4). He didn't force action on offense, instead letting his rim protection dictate his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.1

A massive offensive breakout drove an elite box score rating. Efficient shot selection and strong point-of-attack defense (+4.9) solidified a highly impactful two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 19.1m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Snapping a five-game streak of elite efficiency, his missed interior looks dragged his overall impact down. Solid hustle numbers weren't enough to offset the uncharacteristic struggles around the basket.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

An explosive pattern of aggressive shot creation completely flipped the momentum while he was on the floor. Combined with disruptive defensive metrics (+4.6), his downhill pressure dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 16.2m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.6

Passive offensive positioning defined his minutes, halving his usual scoring output and making him a non-factor on that end. Strong defensive activity (+3.1) couldn't compensate for essentially playing 4-on-5 offensively.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -49.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

A completely flat performance defined by missed perimeter looks and negligible defensive resistance. The lack of hustle plays or offensive gravity made him a liability during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -56.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalizing on his limited touches maximized his value without forcing bad shots. Efficient finishing and solid defensive positioning (+2.8) anchored a highly productive short shift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Marginal defensive contributions were offset by a sharp decline in offensive production. The inability to finish his limited looks kept him from making a meaningful dent in the game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Complete offensive invisibility—failing to log a single shot attempt—rendered his brief stint entirely empty. Without generating any rim pressure or defensive deterrence, his minutes were a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -64.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2