Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

DiVincenzo Hard 7/15 +3.2
McDaniels 8/15 +1.7
Reid Hard 7/14 +3.5
Randle 7/14 +1.4
Gobert Open 11/13 +5.7
Dillingham 3/7 -1.4
Shannon Jr. Open 3/7 -2.7
Clark 1/3 -1.4
Hyland Hard 1/1 +2.1

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 14/28 +10.9
Post Hard 5/15 -1.1
Spencer Hard 5/13 -0.4
Butler III 6/11 -0.6
Moody Hard 5/10 +0.8
Melton 2/6 -2.5
Hield Hard 2/4 +1.6
Jackson-Davis Open 3/4 +1.2
Podziemski Hard 1/4 -1.6
Santos Open 1/1 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
GSW
48/89 Field Goals 44/96
53.9% Field Goal % 45.8%
11/31 3-Pointers 15/46
35.5% 3-Point % 32.6%
20/28 Free Throws 17/22
71.4% Free Throw % 77.3%
62.7% True Shooting % 56.8%
54 Total Rebounds 52
11 Offensive 12
33 Defensive 30
30 Assists 27
2.73 Assist/TO Ratio 2.08
10 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 7
3 Blocks 2
22 Fouls 23
66 Points in Paint 44
18 Fast Break Pts 12
15 Points off TOs 19
13 Second Chance Pts 20
35 Bench Points 32
12 Largest Lead 6
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Rudy Gobert
24 PTS · 14 REB · 1 AST · 35.2 MIN
+32.49
2
Stephen Curry
39 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 32.2 MIN
+24.99
3
Julius Randle
27 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 34.1 MIN
+19.47
4
Naz Reid
18 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 30.4 MIN
+17.4
5
Donte DiVincenzo
21 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 35.2 MIN
+16.82
6
Jimmy Butler III
15 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 36.9 MIN
+15.58
7
Trayce Jackson-Davis
8 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 14.7 MIN
+13.76
8
Moses Moody
11 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 22.6 MIN
+13.09
9
Jaden McDaniels
17 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 34.8 MIN
+10.28
10
Pat Spencer
12 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 28.3 MIN
+8.07
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Randle REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 127–120
Q4 0:03 MISS M. Moody 3PT 127–120
Q4 0:07 J. Randle Free Throw 2 of 2 (27 PTS) 127–120
Q4 0:07 J. Randle Free Throw 1 of 2 (26 PTS) 126–120
Q4 0:07 M. Moody personal FOUL (5 PF) (Randle 2 FT) 125–120
Q4 0:08 S. Curry driving finger roll Layup (39 PTS) 125–120
Q4 0:14 D. DiVincenzo Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 125–118
Q4 0:14 D. DiVincenzo Free Throw 1 of 2 (20 PTS) 124–118
Q4 0:14 Q. Post personal FOUL (3 PF) (DiVincenzo 2 FT) 123–118
Q4 0:16 R. Gobert REBOUND (Off:4 Def:10) 123–118
Q4 0:18 MISS D. Melton 6' driving floating Shot 123–118
Q4 0:28 D. DiVincenzo 3PT (19 PTS) (J. Randle 6 AST) 123–118
Q4 0:42 R. Gobert REBOUND (Off:4 Def:9) 120–118
Q4 0:44 MISS S. Curry 21' step back Shot 120–118
Q4 0:59 M. Moody REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 120–118

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

GSW Golden State Warriors
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.1

Delivered a balanced, veteran performance where strong defensive instincts (+4.5) and hustle plays kept the team stabilized. His overall impact was muted by a lack of perimeter efficiency, allowing defenders to pack the paint against his drives. Operated effectively as a secondary playmaker, though a pattern of empty possessions kept his net score barely above neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Quinten Post 33.2m
16
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

A brutal combination of high-volume missed shots and poor defensive anchoring cratered his overall impact rating. Falling in love with the perimeter jumper rather than punishing interior matchups led to countless empty trips. Despite decent rebounding numbers, his shot selection actively bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephen Curry 32.2m
39
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+27.2

Carried the offensive load with a relentless barrage of perimeter shot-making that heavily skewed his box score metrics (+27.5). His constant off-ball movement exhausted defenders and created immense gravity, a pattern that opened up the floor for everyone else. A dominant scoring display that easily absorbed any minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +28.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +10.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pat Spencer 28.3m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

Generated tremendous defensive value (+5.3) through aggressive closeouts, but gave it all back with erratic offensive execution. A barrage of missed jumpers and a pattern of likely turnovers in traffic severely damaged his net impact. His relentless motor couldn't compensate for the lack of polish on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Buddy Hield 18.9m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

A sharp decline in overall impact driven by defensive liabilities (-0.1) and costly mistakes that fueled opponent runs. While he found some success from the perimeter, his inability to stay in front of his man compromised the defensive shell. The scoring burst was entirely overshadowed by a pattern of negative plays in transition.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-18.2

Suffered a disastrous outing where poor shot selection and a complete lack of offensive rhythm resulted in a team-worst impact score (-13.5). Opponents aggressively pressured his handle, exploiting a matchup that likely forced turnovers and ignited fast breaks the other way. A stark regression from his recent efficient stretch, defined by hesitation and costly errors.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Moses Moody 22.6m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

A highly effective two-way shift defined by disciplined defense (+4.1) and timely hustle plays (+3.4). He capitalized on defensive rotations by attacking closeouts with purpose, a pattern that avoided the costly mistakes that plague younger wings. Provided exactly the kind of stabilizing, low-mistake minutes needed from a role player.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Solid hustle (+2.8) and defensive contributions were overshadowed by an inability to convert open looks on the offensive end. His struggles to finish through contact established a pattern of empty possessions that stalled the team's momentum. Provided energy and disruption, but the lack of scoring punch ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Dominated the interior with elite defensive positioning (+5.9) and flawless execution around the rim. His ability to consistently win the battle for loose balls (+2.2) and protect the paint resulted in a massive positive impact. A hyper-efficient rim-running performance that punished the defense's frontcourt matchup for every missed rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Gui Santos 6.5m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.9

Managed to convert his only offensive look but was ultimately a net negative due to defensive lapses (-0.5) during his short stint. Failed to provide the necessary energy or hustle to justify extended minutes in the rotation. A quiet, low-impact garbage-time appearance that broke his recent streak of highly efficient performances.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.1

A brief, ineffective cameo where he failed to register any positive hustle metrics before being pulled. His completely neutral defensive presence negated the primary reason he was on the floor. The short first-half stint was marred by empty possessions that quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 35.2m
24
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+34.3

An absolute masterclass in interior dominance, fueled by near-perfect shot selection around the rim. His towering defensive presence (+6.6) completely deterred opponents from challenging the paint. Capitalized on defensive breakdowns with a pattern of perfectly timed rolls to the basket, driving a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +22.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +17.8
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.8

Volume shooting from beyond the arc generated strong box score value, though a high rate of missed attempts kept his total impact grounded. His active hands and constant motion translated to impressive hustle metrics (+3.5) that disrupted passing lanes. Provided crucial spacing during key second-half stretches, even if the overall efficiency wasn't elite.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense -2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 34.8m
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Poor shot quality from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off, clogging the paint for teammates. A frustrating pattern of costly live-ball turnovers completely erased the value of his defensive effort, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 48.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Julius Randle 34.1m
27
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.0

Massive box score production was heavily diluted by hidden negative plays like defensive lapses in transition and sloppy ball security. His physical drives created immense gravity, yet a pattern of offensive fouls or turnovers capped his overall ceiling. Still managed to stay positive thanks to a continued streak of high-percentage finishing.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +21.5
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +7.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bones Hyland 4.7m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Logged minimal floor time but managed to stay slightly positive by capitalizing on his lone perimeter look. Avoided the defensive bleeding that usually plagues his minutes, maintaining a neutral presence on that end. A brief but highly efficient second-quarter stint provided a quick spark without any costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Exceptional defensive metrics (+5.1) highlight his ability to navigate screens and contest shots, but his offensive execution was a major detriment. A high volume of empty trips and potential turnovers completely erased the value he provided on the other end. His aggressive downhill drives established a pattern of forced attempts rather than high-quality looks.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Naz Reid 30.4m
18
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.1

Thrived as a versatile frontcourt hub, blending excellent defensive positioning (+5.9) with relentless energy on loose balls (+4.0). His ability to stretch the floor pulled opposing bigs out of the paint, establishing a pattern of open cutting lanes for others. A highly impactful two-way performance that far exceeded his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 18.7m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+3.0) was entirely undone by severe offensive limitations and poor shot quality. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which stalled half-court sets and led to forced plays. A classic defensive-specialist outing where a pattern of empty offensive trips actively harmed the team's overall rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.4

Struggled to find a rhythm offensively, with poor shot selection and defensive passivity plunging his net impact deep into the negative. Despite showing flashes of effort on 50/50 balls, his inability to orchestrate the offense led to stagnant possessions. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, a matchup nightmare that exposed his lack of physical resistance.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2