Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAS lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
SAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson 12/31 -5.9
Towns Open 7/15 -4.5
Anunoby Hard 5/12 +0.3
Shamet 5/9 +2.8
McBride Hard 2/7 -1.5
Alvarado Hard 3/6 +0.9
Bridges 3/6 +0.5
Hart 1/5 -3.7
Robinson Open 1/2 -0.8
Clarkson Hard 0/1 -1.1

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama Hard 6/21 -6.9
Castle 7/16 -1.9
Fox 3/13 -7.7
Champagnie Hard 5/11 +3.5
Vassell 4/11 -3.6
Harper 6/10 +2.3
Johnson 1/4 -1.8
Barnes Hard 0/2 -2.0
Bryant Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
SAS
39/94 Field Goals 32/89
41.5% Field Goal % 36.0%
11/36 3-Pointers 11/43
30.6% 3-Point % 25.6%
16/18 Free Throws 20/25
88.9% Free Throw % 80.0%
51.5% True Shooting % 47.5%
60 Total Rebounds 60
10 Offensive 14
39 Defensive 40
20 Assists 16
2.22 Assist/TO Ratio 1.23
8 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 4
4 Blocks 4
23 Fouls 23
50 Points in Paint 42
12 Fast Break Pts 15
19 Points off TOs 14
23 Second Chance Pts 14
28 Bench Points 20
10 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Josh Hart
3 PTS · 15 REB · 6 AST · 26.8 MIN
+16.12
2
Julian Champagnie
16 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 31.2 MIN
+15.64
3
OG Anunoby
17 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 31.1 MIN
+15.34
4
Karl-Anthony Towns
18 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 34.4 MIN
+15.0
5
Dylan Harper
16 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 27.5 MIN
+14.34
6
Victor Wembanyama
26 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 37.8 MIN
+11.9
7
Mikal Bridges
9 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 28.2 MIN
+10.38
8
Stephon Castle
17 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 34.4 MIN
+10.23
9
Devin Vassell
9 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 36.0 MIN
+8.42
10
Jalen Brunson
30 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 37.0 MIN
+8.04
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 J. Hart REBOUND (Off:2 Def:13) 105–95
Q4 0:13 MISS J. Champagnie 25' 3PT 105–95
Q4 0:20 O. Anunoby Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 105–95
Q4 0:20 O. Anunoby Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 104–95
Q4 0:20 S. Castle take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Anunoby 2 FT) 103–95
Q4 0:21 D. Fox bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 103–95
Q4 0:29 O. Anunoby Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 103–95
Q4 0:29 O. Anunoby Free Throw 1 of 2 (14 PTS) 102–95
Q4 0:29 D. Fox loose ball personal FOUL (5 PF) (Anunoby 2 FT) 101–95
Q4 0:29 TEAM defensive REBOUND 101–95
Q4 0:32 MISS V. Wembanyama 27' 3PT 101–95
Q4 0:37 J. Brunson 14' pullup Jump Shot (30 PTS) 101–95
Q4 0:57 J. Hart STEAL (4 STL) 99–95
Q4 0:57 V. Wembanyama lost ball TURNOVER (6 TO) 99–95
Q4 1:11 M. Bridges Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 99–95

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

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 37.9m
7
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.5

A brutal shooting night completely defined this performance, as he shot just 3/13 from the field and 0/4 from deep. This led to a significant negative offensive contribution (-4.4) that even his solid defensive effort (opponents 2/9 FG) could not overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.2%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
26
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.0

His value was driven by overwhelming defensive dominance, not efficient offense. He generated a massive +12.5 in defensive value and +6.7 in hustle, contesting 17 shots and blocking 3.0, which compensated for his inefficient 6/21 shooting and 6.0 turnovers.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +10.4
Defense +3.5
Turnovers -13.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 6
S Devin Vassell 36.0m
9
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

His perimeter shot abandoned him (1/6 3P), forcing him to find other ways to contribute on a night of inefficient shooting. While his offense still generated positive value (+8.0), likely through his 3.0 assists, his overall impact was dragged down by poor defensive matchups where opponents shot 8/13 (62%).

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +11.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 34.5m
17
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.7

He operated as a score-first guard rather than a playmaker, with his assists (3.0) well below his average of 6.8. His value came from his offensive punch (+12.1) and suffocating on-ball defense, where he held his matchups to just 3/18 (17%) shooting.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.4

This performance was fueled entirely by a barrage of perimeter shooting. He generated a massive +15.2 in offensive value by connecting on 5/10 from three-point range, which was essential as he struggled defensively, allowing opponents to shoot 10/16 when he was guarding them.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +12.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 27.5m
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

This was an incredibly efficient two-way performance. He drove the action with a +12.1 offensive contribution on 6/10 shooting while also adding significant defensive value (+4.7) and crashing the glass for 8.0 rebounds.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.9

He provided little value in his 12 minutes, failing to score and finishing with a negative offensive contribution (-0.5). While his defense was solid (+0.5), his overall performance was largely invisible.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 10.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

In his 10 minutes of action, his sole contribution came on the defensive end. He failed to score but managed to generate a positive defensive value of +1.9, serving as a brief interior presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

He was a non-factor in a brief 8-minute appearance off the bench. He failed to make a significant impression, contributing minimal offensive value (+1.0) on just 1/4 shooting before fouling out of his limited stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

His brief 4-minute cameo was a net negative for his team. He failed to find any rhythm, generating negative value on both offense (-0.4) and defense (-0.8) during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 37.0m
30
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

This was a pure volume scoring night where he shouldered the entire offensive load, but with diminishing returns. He generated positive offensive value (+10.5) on 31 shots, but this was offset by a steep drop in creation (2.0 assists) and 4.0 turnovers.

Shooting
FG 12/31 (38.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 40.2%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 6.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
18
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.0

A dominant two-way performance was defined by his interior presence, not his perimeter shooting (0/2 3P). He generated massive offensive value (+16.1) while defensively he was a wall, contesting 11 shots and holding opponents to just 3/15 (20%) shooting.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +15.2
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 31.1m
17
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

This was a pure 3-and-D performance, as he generated almost no value as a creator with 0.0 assists. His impact was driven by efficient scoring (+12.4 Offense) on 3/6 shooting from deep and lockdown individual defense where opponents shot just 3/11 (27%) against him.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Mikal Bridges 28.2m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

He found value without being a primary scorer, contributing with efficient, low-volume offense (+8.9) and disruptive defense. His 2.0 steals and strong matchup defense, where opponents shot just 4/12 (33%), were more central to his game than his 9.0 points.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Hart 26.8m
3
pts
15
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.5

While his scoring was non-existent (1/5 FG), his performance was defined by overwhelming defensive and hustle contributions. He generated massive value through his +11.3 Defense and +3.6 Hustle components, grabbing 15.0 rebounds and 4.0 steals while holding opponents to 2/6 shooting.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +19.1
Defense +7.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

He provided a much-needed scoring spark off the bench, with his +9.6 offensive contribution driven by efficient 3/6 shooting from deep. However, this offensive boost was largely negated by his defensive struggles, where opponents shot 8/14 (57%) when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

He shifted from a pure shooter into more of a distributor in this one, a move that defined his performance. While his shot wasn't falling (2/7 FG), he dished out 4.0 assists (avg 1.1) and took care of the ball with 0.0 turnovers, generating a positive offensive contribution (+3.7).

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

In his limited 13:09 on the court, he operated as a pure defensive specialist. His positive impact was driven almost entirely by his defensive contributions (+3.5), as he grabbed 6.0 rebounds without committing a turnover.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

He provided a classic sparkplug performance in just under 11 minutes of action. His impact was driven by an efficient offensive burst (+3.0) where he scored 7.0 points on 3/6 shooting and surprisingly chipped in with 4.0 rebounds.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

He was a non-factor in just 5:39 of playing time, failing to score on his only attempt. His brief cameo on the court left no significant imprint on the game, resulting in negative offensive value (-0.9).

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0