Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead SAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAC 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

DeRozan Hard 8/15 +3.8
Westbrook 4/13 -6.4
Schröder 5/11 +1.3
Murray 3/11 -4.8
Monk 3/9 -0.6
LaVine 4/8 -0.4
Achiuwa Open 7/7 +5.5
Raynaud Open 3/6 -0.8
Clifford Hard 0/1 -1.1

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Randle 9/21 -5.0
McDaniels 7/19 -6.7
DiVincenzo 7/18 -3.9
Reid Hard 7/12 +5.5
Hyland 6/10 +1.9
Gobert Open 3/4 +0.6
Dillingham Open 2/4 -0.1
Clark Hard 1/3 -0.6
Shannon Jr. 1/3 -1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAC
MIN
37/81 Field Goals 43/94
45.7% Field Goal % 45.7%
10/23 3-Pointers 12/37
43.5% 3-Point % 32.4%
19/25 Free Throws 19/27
76.0% Free Throw % 70.4%
56.0% True Shooting % 55.3%
49 Total Rebounds 60
4 Offensive 15
32 Defensive 33
21 Assists 25
1.40 Assist/TO Ratio 2.08
15 Turnovers 11
5 Steals 12
9 Blocks 5
21 Fouls 26
40 Points in Paint 58
16 Fast Break Pts 19
9 Points off TOs 17
12 Second Chance Pts 18
50 Bench Points 29
9 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Julius Randle
24 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 36.4 MIN
+22.54
2
Donte DiVincenzo
18 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 33.7 MIN
+22.33
3
Naz Reid
20 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 34.6 MIN
+20.17
4
Precious Achiuwa
17 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 26.5 MIN
+17.16
5
DeMar DeRozan
17 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 39.1 MIN
+15.91
6
Malik Monk
16 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 26.8 MIN
+12.17
7
Jaden McDaniels
21 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 38.0 MIN
+11.92
8
Bones Hyland
18 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 35.7 MIN
+11.24
9
Rudy Gobert
7 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 20.1 MIN
+9.34
10
Dennis Schröder
17 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 25.1 MIN
+6.77
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:21 MIN shot clock Team TURNOVER 103–117
Q4 0:45 K. Murray Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 103–117
Q4 0:45 K. Murray Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 102–117
Q4 0:45 B. Hyland shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Murray 2 FT) 101–117
Q4 0:45 K. Murray REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 101–117
Q4 0:48 MISS M. Monk 24' pullup 3PT 101–117
Q4 0:59 J. Randle running Layup (24 PTS) (J. McDaniels 2 AST) 101–117
Q4 1:04 J. McDaniels STEAL (2 STL) 101–115
Q4 1:04 K. Murray bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 101–115
Q4 1:18 J. Randle Free Throw 1 of 1 (22 PTS) 101–115
Q4 1:18 P. Achiuwa shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Randle 1 FT) 101–114
Q4 1:18 J. Randle putback Layup (21 PTS) 101–114
Q4 1:18 J. Randle REBOUND (Off:4 Def:6) 101–112
Q4 1:19 MISS J. Randle cutting Layup 101–112
Q4 1:29 TEAM offensive REBOUND 101–112

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

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 38.0m
21
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc torpedoed his offensive value, wasting numerous open catch-and-shoot opportunities. While he maintained his usual defensive intensity, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions dragged his overall score into the red. His inability to punish closeouts defined a frustrating two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 36.4m
24
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.9

Bully-ball tactics and relentless glass-cleaning drove a highly productive shift, even if the overall shooting efficiency was slightly pedestrian. He consistently drew defensive attention in the paint, creating a gravitational pull that benefited the entire offense. Strong defensive rebounding secured possessions and fueled transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +12.7
Defense +5.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bones Hyland 35.7m
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

A highly efficient scoring burst off the dribble was largely undone by defensive lapses and a failure to stretch the floor consistently. While he easily beat his recent scoring averages, his struggles to contain dribble penetration allowed opponents to trade baskets too easily. The offensive spark was ultimately neutralized by his porous point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and elite perimeter defense completely overshadowed an inefficient shooting night. He wreaked havoc in the passing lanes and secured critical loose balls, generating extra possessions that swung the game's momentum. This was a masterclass in impacting winning without relying on a polished offensive game.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +9.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 20.1m
7
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Limited minutes restricted his usual dominant paint presence, though he remained highly effective as a lob threat and rim deterrent when on the floor. A sharp drop in offensive volume kept his impact modest, as guards failed to find him consistently in the pick-and-roll. Still, his defensive anchoring ensured a positive overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/6 (16.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Naz Reid 34.6m
20
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.3

Lethal floor-spacing from the frontcourt broke the opposing defense, pulling rim protectors away from the basket. He paired this elite shooting with excellent defensive positioning and rebounding, putting together a complete two-way performance. His ability to hit trailing threes in transition was the defining weapon of his shift.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +11.1
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaylen Clark 16.5m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.1

Offensive limitations were glaringly obvious, as he failed to generate any rim pressure or perimeter gravity. Opponents actively sagged off him, bogging down the half-court offense and leading to a severe negative impact. Without his usual defensive disruption to compensate, his floor time was highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Failed to make any meaningful dent in the game, struggling to find his spots during a brief and ineffective rotation stint. Poor defensive positioning compounded his offensive invisibility, leading to a steep negative impact in limited action. He looked out of sync with the offensive flow, forcing bad looks when he did touch the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Provided a steady, low-mistake presence in brief minutes, taking only high-value shots when the offense dictated it. He didn't force the issue, maintaining a neutral impact by moving the ball and playing passable positional defense. A quiet but perfectly acceptable developmental shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 39.1m
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

His methodical midrange isolation game anchored a positive overall impact, capitalizing on his spots without forcing bad looks. Strong defensive metrics and hustle plays further stabilized his floor presence. The veteran's disciplined shot selection yielded reliable two-way production.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Keegan Murray 39.0m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

A flurry of missed perimeter looks severely dragged down his offensive value, neutralizing what was otherwise an excellent defensive outing. The inability to convert open catch-and-shoot jumpers created empty possessions that hurt team momentum. Despite strong effort on the glass and contesting shots, the shooting woes dictated his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 4
8
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
-8.1

Poor shot selection and bricked triples cratered his offensive efficiency, erasing the value of his high-level playmaking. While his defensive engagement and rebounding were outstanding, the sheer volume of wasted possessions derailed his overall impact. His insistence on taking low-percentage pull-up jumpers proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Maxime Raynaud 26.4m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

A sharp drop-off in offensive volume compared to his recent hot streak limited his overall footprint on the game. While he converted his limited touches efficiently, his reluctance to demand the ball in the post kept his impact firmly in the negative. He struggled to assert himself physically, blending into the background of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 15.7m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Short minutes prevented him from finding a consistent rhythm, with erratic perimeter shooting capping his offensive ceiling. He failed to generate secondary stats or defensive disruption, rendering his floor time relatively hollow. A lack of downhill aggression defined this brief, underwhelming stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Malik Monk 26.8m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Timely perimeter shot-making salvaged an otherwise inefficient scoring night, keeping his offensive impact afloat. He struggled to finish inside the arc, but his floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates. A relatively quiet defensive showing meant his value was entirely tied to those crucial deep conversions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
17
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.3

Flawless execution around the basket drove a massive positive impact, punishing the defense on every interior touch. He paired this perfect shooting with relentless hustle and sturdy rim protection, dominating his matchup on both ends. This performance was defined by elite shot selection and high-motor defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

A surprising scoring surge from deep masked significant defensive liabilities that ultimately sank his overall rating. Opposing guards routinely exploited him at the point of attack, bleeding points that negated his offensive burst. His failure to generate hustle plays or secure loose balls compounded the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to register a single productive stat in his rotation minutes. His complete lack of off-ball movement left a noticeable void on the wing, contrasting sharply with his recent reliable scoring. Without offensive involvement, his minimal defensive contributions couldn't prevent a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1