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 a shooter to isolate their shots on the court
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Brooks 12/23 +5.5
Green 8/23 -8.3
Booker 7/14 -0.5
Gillespie Hard 3/9 -0.6
Ighodaro Open 3/8 -3.9
O'Neale Hard 4/5 +6.8
Maluach Open 2/3 +0.3

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 13/25 +3.1
Holmgren Hard 7/12 +4.4
Mitchell 5/12 -1.7
Williams 7/11 +3.5
Dort Hard 3/7 +1.9
Joe Hard 2/7 -0.8
Caruso 3/7 -1.5
Hartenstein Open 3/6 -1.9
Williams Hard 0/2 -1.9
Wallace Hard 0/2 -2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
OKC
39/85 Field Goals 43/91
45.9% Field Goal % 47.3%
11/31 3-Pointers 14/40
35.5% 3-Point % 35.0%
18/22 Free Throws 20/25
81.8% Free Throw % 80.0%
56.5% True Shooting % 58.8%
53 Total Rebounds 51
15 Offensive 12
29 Defensive 28
23 Assists 24
1.05 Assist/TO Ratio 2.40
21 Turnovers 10
7 Steals 14
1 Blocks 6
25 Fouls 21
42 Points in Paint 48
14 Fast Break Pts 11
9 Points off TOs 22
18 Second Chance Pts 11
20 Bench Points 27
3 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
37 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 38.2 MIN
+29.99
2
Royce O'Neale
16 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 34.2 MIN
+19.45
3
Dillon Brooks
30 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 38.4 MIN
+16.87
4
Jalen Williams
19 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 23.3 MIN
+15.67
5
Ajay Mitchell
14 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 29.0 MIN
+15.19
6
Isaiah Hartenstein
9 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 22.2 MIN
+13.68
7
Chet Holmgren
19 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 32.5 MIN
+13.42
8
Devin Booker
22 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 40.1 MIN
+11.53
9
Alex Caruso
7 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 23.5 MIN
+10.09
10
Cason Wallace
0 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 21.3 MIN
+7.42
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 PHX shot clock Team TURNOVER 107–120
Q4 0:25 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (37 PTS) 107–120
Q4 0:25 S. Gilgeous-Alexander Free Throw 1 of 2 (36 PTS) 107–119
Q4 0:25 D. Brooks personal FOUL (6 PF) (Gilgeous-Alexander 2 FT) 107–118
Q4 0:30 L. Dort REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 107–118
Q4 0:33 MISS D. Booker 26' running pullup 3PT 107–118
Q4 0:37 R. O'Neale REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 107–118
Q4 0:40 MISS L. Dort 3PT 107–118
Q4 0:52 C. Wallace STEAL (3 STL) 107–118
Q4 0:52 J. Green bad pass TURNOVER (7 TO) 107–118
Q4 1:04 D. Brooks REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 107–118
Q4 1:06 MISS A. Mitchell 3PT 107–118
Q4 1:26 R. O'Neale Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 107–118
Q4 1:26 R. O'Neale Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 106–118
Q4 1:26 A. Mitchell personal FOUL (2 PF) (O'Neale 2 FT) 105–118

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

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
37
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+28.3

An unstoppable blend of volume scoring and elite orchestration yielded a massive +29.2 Offense credit, highlighted by 37 points and 9 assists. He was equally suffocating on the perimeter, locking down his assignments to 3-of-9 shooting (33%) to secure a robust +4.2 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +28.4
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +7.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 32.5m
19
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless rim protection defined his interior dominance, racking up 4 blocks and an absurd 17 shot contests to anchor an +8.2 Defense credit. He paired this defensive workload with efficient floor-spacing (3-of-6 from deep) to drive a +9.9 Offense credit, though his matchups still managed to find success on high volume (13-of-24 shooting).

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 54.2%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 23.9m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

His offensive contribution was entirely reliant on the three-point shot, deriving all his field goals from beyond the arc (3-of-7) for a modest +5.8 Offense credit. He provided sturdy, if unspectacular, point-of-attack defense, limiting his assignments to 43% shooting without generating much peripheral hustle stats.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Williams 23.3m
19
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.4

Surgical shot selection drove his highly productive +14.9 Offense credit, as he carved up the defense on 64% shooting from the field. While his offensive execution was nearly flawless, he offered little resistance on the other end, allowing his matchups to convert 3-of-5 attempts.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Absolute dominance in drop coverage suffocated the opposition, as he contested 9 shots and held his direct matchups to a miserable 15% (2-of-13) from the floor. His physical presence extended to the glass and the pick-and-roll, securing 10 rebounds and generating a +14.1 Offense credit through timely finishing and 3 screen assists.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +12.7
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.4

Versatile playmaking and steady rebounding from the guard spot drove a strong +12.4 Offense credit, despite a cold night from beyond the arc (1-of-5 3P). He paired his offensive creation with pesky perimeter defense, grabbing 2 steals and holding opponents to 42% shooting when targeted.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Alex Caruso 23.5m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Disruptive off-ball activity fueled his defensive value, as he racked up 3 steals, 4 deflections, and a drawn charge to anchor a +6.6 Defense credit. However, he struggled mightily in isolation defense, allowing his primary matchups to torch him for 5-of-7 shooting (71%).

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

A staggering 8 deflections and 3 steals powered an elite +7.4 Hustle credit, showcasing his relentless motor despite a completely scoreless offensive night. Curiously, while his off-ball disruption was phenomenal (+7.6 Defense), he was repeatedly exploited in direct coverage, allowing a brutal 75% conversion rate to his matchups.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 14.8m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

A frigid shooting performance hampered his typical microwave role, as he connected on just 2-of-7 attempts from deep, resulting in a -0.3 Offense credit. He managed to stay engaged defensively, holding his assignments to 40% shooting, but the lack of scoring severely limited his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.6

A complete lack of offensive rhythm resulted in a scoreless outing and a negative Offense credit (-1.2), as he failed to convert any of his attempts. He salvaged some value on the other end through disciplined positioning, contesting 4 shots and limiting his matchups to 33% shooting to earn a +2.4 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

He saw just 8 seconds of floor time, functioning merely as a situational substitution. The microscopic stint offered no chance to accumulate stats or impact the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Jalen Green 41.4m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

Damaging ball security and poor shot selection completely derailed his offensive value, as evidenced by his 7 turnovers (avg 2.5) and a muted +0.3 Offense credit. Despite generating some activity with 4 deflections (+4.0 Hustle), his inability to contain his matchup (opponents shot 59% against him) compounded the damage.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S Devin Booker 40.1m
22
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.7

Efficient interior scoring and frequent trips to the foul line (8-of-10 FT) drove a solid +12.5 Offense credit, though 5 turnovers (avg 2.3) capped his ceiling as a creator. His defensive resistance was practically nonexistent, allowing his assignments to scorch him for 9-of-13 shooting (69%).

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -13.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Dillon Brooks 38.4m
30
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.7

A blistering perimeter display fueled his massive +19.8 Offense credit, as he poured in 30 points (avg 15.3) on highly efficient 5-of-9 shooting from deep. However, his defensive impact (-1.4 Defense) lagged behind his scoring outburst, allowing his primary matchups to convert 54% of their looks.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense -4.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Oso Ighodaro 29.4m
7
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

Playmaking from the frontcourt highlighted his offensive contribution, generating a +7.1 Offense credit through his 5 assists (avg 2.7) and 3 screen assists. Unfortunately, he struggled heavily as a rim protector, permitting opponents to shoot a blistering 64% when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.0

Despite a cold shooting night (3-of-9 FG), he found ways to contribute across the board with above-average rebounding (6 boards) and playmaking (6 assists). His effort translated into sturdy point-of-attack resistance, holding his matchups to 43% shooting and earning a +4.1 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.3

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency defined his night, combining flawless perimeter shooting (4-of-5 3P) for a +16.6 Offense credit. He was equally dominant on the other end, utilizing 10 contests and 4 deflections to stifle opponents to 35% shooting and secure a +6.2 Defense credit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 118.3%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +10.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

Operating primarily as a low-usage interior presence, he managed a few efficient finishes (2-of-3 FG) but failed to leave a significant mark offensively (-0.2 Offense). He did show flashes of rim deterrence, contesting 4 shots and holding his matchups to a respectable 40% from the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 7.7m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Complete offensive invisibility plagued his short stint on the floor, failing to attempt a single shot or record a point in nearly eight minutes of action. His muted presence yielded negligible impact across the board (-0.5 Defense), reflecting a continuation of his recent shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A fleeting 25-second cameo prevented him from registering any meaningful statistics or impact. He simply served as an end-of-quarter placeholder without factoring into the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Logging less than a minute of garbage time, he recorded no stats and generated zero measurable impact. The brief appearance was purely procedural.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

He saw only 25 seconds of court time, leaving his box score completely empty. The minimal run offered no opportunity to influence the game in any capacity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0