Atlanta Hawks

Eastern Conference

Atlanta
Hawks

HC Quin Snyder

47-37
W1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Jalen Johnson
Forward Yr 4 74G (74S)
+15.5
22.4 pts
10.2 reb
7.7 ast
35.2 min

This late-season stretch marked Jalen Johnson's absolute eruption into a highly-effective, do-it-all point forward. He reached his zenith on 03/07 vs PHI, torching the defense for 35 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists. His staggering +36.9 Impact score in that contest stemmed directly from relentless rim pressure and crisp shot selection. Even when his jumper completely abandoned him, Johnson found ways to dictate terms. Look no further than 02/20 vs MIA, where a dismal 6-for-22 shooting night still yielded a +11.0 Impact score because he ruthlessly crashed the glass for 16 rebounds and orchestrated the offense with 11 assists. Conversely, passive outings severely limited his effectiveness. On 03/01 vs POR, a lethargic 8-point effort on just nine shot attempts dragged him to a -3.8 Impact score, exposing how offensive hesitation can completely neutralize his value. When he stays aggressive and trusts his playmaking instincts, Johnson transforms into an absolute nightmare for opposing defenses.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker
Guard Yr 6 80G (73S)
+9.1
20.6 pts
3.4 reb
3.7 ast
33.5 min

Nickeil Alexander-Walker morphed into a terrifying offensive flamethrower during this late-season stretch, burying opponents under an avalanche of perimeter scoring. Things initially looked bleak on 02/11 vs CHA. Forced shots and a brutal 2-for-13 shooting night dragged his impact score down to a dismal -10.0. He quickly abandoned that hesitation and caught absolute fire, reaching a boiling point on 03/16 vs ORL. Pouring in 41 points on a blistering 9-of-14 from beyond the arc, his lethal shot-making generated a staggering +43.7 impact. Yet his value extended far beyond pure scoring volume. Even during a modest 17-point, 4-of-12 shooting night on 02/22 vs BKN, he still recorded a robust +12.0 impact by relentlessly pressuring the ball and creating extra possessions through sheer defensive hustle.

CJ McCollum
Guard Yr 12 43G (27S)
+7.9
19.2 pts
3.1 reb
4.0 ast
29.1 min

A swift promotion from the second unit to a permanent starting role defined this late-season stretch for CJ McCollum. When his perimeter stroke caught fire, he was an absolute offensive wrecking ball. During the 03/14 vs MIL matchup, he erupted for 30 points on blistering 7-for-10 shooting from beyond the arc, earning a massive +20.6 impact score through sheer shot-making brilliance. Yet, he also found ways to tilt the floor when his scoring volume dipped. In his first start of this run on 02/22 vs BKN, McCollum scored a modest 16 points but still drove a +10.1 impact by aggressively crashing the glass for eight rebounds and making smart passes. That veteran green light is a double-edged sword, however. Despite generating 14 points and six assists on 03/30 vs BOS, his impact plummeted to -5.4 because he needed 17 field goal attempts to get there, stalling the offense with forced, inefficient looks. He remains a lethal scorer, but his erratic shot selection makes him a highly volatile asset.

Dyson Daniels
Guard Yr 3 78G (78S)
+7.5
11.7 pts
6.8 reb
5.9 ast
33.1 min

Dyson Daniels spent the final stretch of the season morphing into the ultimate connective tissue, dictating the rhythm of games without needing to dominate the ball. Look at his brilliant outing on 02/24 vs WAS. He scored a mere 6 points on seven shots, yet he generated a massive +14.0 Impact. That value stemmed entirely from his relentless hustle and unselfish playmaking, crashing the glass for 8 rebounds and dishing out 7 assists to create easy looks for teammates. When the offense actually demanded him to score, the results were devastating, peaking on 03/21 vs GSW. He torched them for 28 points, 7 rebounds, and 6 assists on 12-for-17 shooting, posting an astronomical +36.5 Impact because of his hyper-efficient shot selection. He occasionally faded into the background, like on 03/20 vs HOU when a passive 1-for-5 shooting performance yielded just 3 points and a -6.2 Impact, actively stalling the offense with his hesitation. Still, those quiet nights were rare anomalies for a versatile wing who has mastered the art of winning in the margins.

Onyeka Okongwu
Forward-Center Yr 5 76G (65S)
+7.2
15.2 pts
7.6 reb
3.1 ast
31.1 min

Onyeka Okongwu spent the back third of the season morphing into a chaotic but highly effective floor-spacing hub. His willingness to do the dirty work kept his value afloat even on his most brutal shooting nights. Take the 02/24 vs WAS matchup, where he bricked his way to a 4-for-17 shooting line but still posted a +7.2 Impact score by securing 10 rebounds and dishing out seven assists. When the jumper actually fell, he was an absolute nightmare for opposing frontcourts. During the 03/01 vs POR contest, Okongwu caught fire from deep, draining seven three-pointers on his way to 25 points and a massive +23.6 Impact score. Yet, his newfound perimeter freedom occasionally sapped his traditional interior presence. Look at the 03/25 vs DET game; he scored 11 points on highly efficient 4-for-6 shooting, but his abysmal effort on the glass—grabbing just one single rebound in 24 minutes—dragged him down to a -4.8 Impact score.

Kristaps Porziņģis
Forward-Center Yr 10 17G (12S)
+6.7
17.1 pts
5.1 reb
2.7 ast
24.3 min

Kristaps Porziņģis spent this stretch riding a frustrating seesaw between unstoppable offensive force and passive perimeter liability. When his stroke caught fire, he was utterly dominant. He erupted for 28 points and a massive +23.1 impact on 03/27 vs WAS by drilling five three-pointers. Yet, just two days prior on 03/25 vs BKN, he managed a respectable 17 points but posted a dismal -7.7 impact. That negative mark stemmed from hidden defensive lapses and a total lack of perimeter gravity that dragged down his overall effectiveness despite the decent scoring total. On the flip side, Porziņģis occasionally generated value when his jumper abandoned him. During his outing on 04/12 vs LAC, he clanked all four of his attempts from deep and scored just 12 points, but still manufactured a +5.4 impact. He salvaged that ugly shooting night by crashing the glass for eight rebounds and executing the unglamorous dirty work inside.

Jonathan Kuminga
Forward Yr 4 18G (1S)
+4.4
12.4 pts
5.2 reb
1.9 ast
23.1 min

Jonathan Kuminga's late-season stretch off the bench was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between hyper-efficient sparkplug and offensive black hole. His worst tendencies surfaced during a disastrous 03/21 vs GSW matchup, where he forced awful attempts against his former team to finish with just 2 points on 1-of-9 shooting. That selfish shot selection cratered the offense, yielding a brutal -13.5 impact score. Yet, he immediately flipped the script on 03/23 vs MEM. By taking in-rhythm looks and draining 4-of-6 from beyond the arc, he poured in 16 points to post a massive +16.3 impact score. Perhaps most interesting was his gritty outing on 04/10 vs CLE. Despite a miserable shooting night where he went 4-of-12 from the floor and missed all six of his three-pointers, Kuminga still salvaged a +10.5 impact score by locking in defensively and creating extra possessions through relentless hustle.

Trae Young
Guard Yr 7 10G (10S)
+3.3
19.3 pts
1.5 reb
8.9 ast
28.0 min
Jock Landale
Center Yr 4 23G (2S)
-0.2
9.1 pts
4.1 reb
1.7 ast
19.4 min

Jock Landale's late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between highly efficient bursts and completely invisible shifts off the bench. When his touch vanished, he became an active detriment to the second unit. Look no further than his disastrous outing on 03/10 vs DAL, where a brutal 0-for-5 shooting night and a total lack of offensive production resulted in a staggering -14.6 impact score. Even when he managed double-digit scoring, hidden costs often dragged him down. On 03/23 vs MEM, his 11 points were entirely neutralized by poor perimeter execution—he bricked three of his four attempts from deep—leaving him with a -3.7 impact. Yet, a sudden promotion to the starting lineup unlocked his absolute best basketball. Given 34 minutes on 03/28 vs SAC, Landale erupted for 19 points and 13 rebounds, dominating the glass to post a massive +16.7 impact score.

Luke Kennard
Guard Yr 8 46G
-1.8
7.9 pts
2.2 reb
2.1 ast
20.5 min

This stretch defined Luke Kennard's late-season evolution from a passive bench shooter into an unlikely, high-volume starting catalyst. During the dreary middle of March, he looked entirely unplayable. His complete refusal to hunt his offense—hoisting just one shot in 13 scoreless minutes on 03/19 vs MIA—created a spacing vacuum that killed his team's flow, resulting in a dismal -13.0 Impact score. A sudden April promotion to the starting lineup flipped a switch. Despite struggling to score efficiently with just 15 points on 17 shots, Kennard salvaged a positive +2.3 Impact score on 04/05 vs DAL through sheer hustle, crashing the glass for 16 rebounds and orchestrating the offense with 11 assists. He finally married this all-around aggression with his elite jumper by the finale. On 04/18 vs HOU, he torched the nets for 27 points on perfect 5-for-5 three-point shooting, generating a massive +15.2 Impact score by ruthlessly punishing defenders who dared to leave him open.

Zaccharie Risacher
Forward Yr 1 68G (46S)
-2.2
9.4 pts
3.8 reb
1.1 ast
22.1 min

Zaccharie Risacher’s late-season stretch was defined by a jarring demotion to the bench that triggered some of the most volatile performance swings of his young career. When he found his rhythm, he looked like a brilliant draft steal. He erupted on 03/12 vs BKN for 19 points and nine rebounds, posting a massive +20.4 Impact score because of his aggressive glass-cleaning and highly efficient three-point shooting. Yet his offensive outbursts didn't always translate to winning basketball, as seen on 03/28 vs SAC. Despite scoring an efficient 13 points in just 19 minutes, his complete lack of playmaking and minimal rebounding dragged his Impact down to -0.2, revealing the hidden costs of a one-dimensional floor game. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute when his shot vanished. During the 03/01 vs POR matchup, Risacher managed just five points, but his active rebounding and overall hustle still earned him a +1.4 Impact score. He remains a tantalizing talent, but until he smooths out these wild fluctuations, coaches will struggle to trust him with heavy rotation minutes.

Vít Krejčí
Guard Yr 4 46G (8S)
-2.9
9.0 pts
2.1 reb
1.5 ast
22.4 min

Vít Krejčí’s midseason stretch was defined by wild, unpredictable swings in offensive utility, oscillating between vital spark plug and complete offensive liability. When his jumper was falling, he looked like a genuine rotation piece, erupting for 17 points on sharp 7-for-10 shooting during the 02/11 vs MIN matchup to post a +4.5 impact score. But those efficient outbursts were buried beneath a mountain of passive, erratic showings. During the 02/22 vs PHX game, Krejčí laid a total goose egg with zero points on 0-for-5 shooting, resulting in a brutal -12.0 impact score because he offered no secondary skills to salvage his minutes. Even when he tried to pivot into a playmaking role, the hidden costs were steep. He managed five assists in just 15 minutes during the 03/13 vs UTA contest, but his sheer lack of scoring gravity—managing just two points on three shot attempts—allowed defenders to sag off him entirely, dragging his impact down to an abysmal -10.9. A bench wing simply cannot survive in the modern league when his baseline floor relies entirely on whether a highly volatile three-point shot happens to drop.

Corey Kispert
Forward Yr 4 40G (8S)
-3.4
9.1 pts
2.2 reb
1.5 ast
18.0 min

Corey Kispert's late-season stretch was defined by a spectacular opening fireworks display followed by a grueling, month-long shooting hangover. He erupted out of the gates on 02/26 vs WAS, torching the nets for 33 points on 6-of-11 three-point shooting to post a staggering +25.4 Impact score. But the magic faded instantly. Once his jumper abandoned him, his lack of secondary playmaking severely punished his team. This offensive futility peaked on 03/28 vs SAC, where a brutal 0-for-3 night from beyond the arc and zero assists resulted in a dismal -14.1 Impact score. Even when he managed to scrape together double-digit scoring, hidden costs dragged him down. During his 10-point outing on 03/18 vs DAL, a complete lack of playmaking—evidenced by zero assists—and empty-calorie possessions handed him a -5.4 Impact score.

Buddy Hield
Guard Yr 9 7G
-4.8
5.1 pts
1.1 reb
0.7 ast
7.3 min

Buddy Hield’s mid-season stretch was a chaotic pendulum swing between flamethrower efficiency and unplayable cold spells at the end of the bench. He briefly looked like the league's most lethal reserve during the 01/21 vs TOR matchup, erupting for 25 points on a flawless 6-for-6 from beyond the arc. That pristine shot selection and perimeter gravity earned him a massive +25.9 Impact score. However, when his jumper vanished, his on-court value cratered. During the 01/27 vs MIN contest, Hield clanked his way to 5 points on an abysmal 2-for-10 shooting night. Because he offers minimal secondary playmaking when his shots aren't falling, those forced, empty possessions dragged him down to a -10.8 Impact. After a brutal string of late-season cameos where his minutes evaporated, he finally relocated his stroke in the 04/12 vs MIA game, pouring in 31 points and seven triples to post a blistering +25.1 Impact.

Mouhamed Gueye
Forward Yr 2 79G (8S)
-5.2
4.4 pts
3.5 reb
0.9 ast
15.1 min

This stretch of the season was a frustratingly erratic ride defined by brief flashes of starting-caliber brilliance buried under weeks of invisible bench minutes. Gueye occasionally found ways to tilt the floor without filling up the scoring column. On 02/24 vs WAS, he generated a robust +7.4 impact score despite scoring just 6 points because he relentlessly attacked the glass, grabbing 11 rebounds in only 18 minutes. He parlayed that hustle into a starting role on 03/21 vs GSW and delivered an absolute masterpiece. Logging 26 minutes, he posted 16 points and 10 rebounds while shooting a flawless 6-for-6 from the floor and 4-for-4 from deep, driving a dominant +12.4 impact. Unfortunately, the magic vanished just as quickly as it appeared. During a dismal outing on 04/06 vs NYK, he wandered through 8 minutes of action to post an abysmal -13.9 impact score, putting up zero points and missing his lone field goal attempt while offering zero resistance to stop the bleeding. He remains a tantalizing athlete, but you simply cannot trust a rotation piece who disappears this frequently.

Asa Newell
Forward Yr 0 44G (2S)
-5.3
5.2 pts
2.2 reb
0.6 ast
11.4 min

Asa Newell’s mid-season slog was defined by a frustrating inability to turn brief offensive flashes into winning basketball, right up until a shocking season-finale eruption. Look at his outing on 02/05 vs UTA. He managed 9 points on an efficient 4/7 from the floor, yet still posted a miserable -5.1 impact score because his production consisted entirely of empty calories with zero assists to keep the offense flowing. Given a rare starting nod shortly after on 02/09 vs MIN, he completely crumbled under the increased workload. He clanked his way to just 2 points on 1/5 shooting across 25 minutes, generating a catastrophic -15.3 impact score as his offensive hesitation and poor spacing actively sabotaged possessions. Just as he seemed destined to rot at the end of the bench, Newell flipped the script entirely on 04/12 vs MIA. Logging a massive 39 minutes as a starter, he attacked the glass relentlessly to tally 17 points and 11 rebounds, earning a stellar +10.7 impact score by finally combining his scoring touch with genuine physical force.

N'Faly Dante
Center Yr 1 4G
-6.0
0.8 pts
1.8 reb
0.0 ast
3.9 min
Tony Bradley
Center-Forward Yr 7 4G (1S)
-6.2
3.2 pts
2.5 reb
0.8 ast
11.6 min

Tony Bradley spent this mid-season stretch fighting a losing battle against his own limited offensive utility, mostly serving as a net-negative presence at the end of the bench. His severe limitations were glaring during an abysmal 04/06 vs NYK appearance. He managed zero points on two missed shots in just four minutes of action to post a staggering -13.7 Impact score. When a big man cannot convert easy looks or control the glass in brief spurts, he actively bleeds value for his team. He did manage one rare flash of brilliance on 01/18 vs DET, racking up 12 points on near-perfect 5-for-6 shooting. Because he actually finished his looks around the rim and even hit a three-pointer, his Impact score surged to a robust +5.5. Yet, when finally gifted a starting nod on 04/12 vs MIA, his inefficient 2-for-6 shooting and meager four points resulted in a -3.7 Impact, confirming he lacks the offensive punch necessary to anchor a modern rotation.

RayJ Dennis
Guard Yr 1 3G
-6.5
3.3 pts
1.0 reb
2.3 ast
11.5 min
Caleb Houstan
Guard Yr 3 18G
-6.8
2.3 pts
0.6 reb
0.2 ast
4.2 min
Gabe Vincent
Guard Yr 6 26G
-7.2
3.8 pts
1.1 reb
1.6 ast
13.4 min

Gabe Vincent spent the spring desperately clinging to the fringes of the rotation, enduring a brutal stretch defined by offensive invisibility and empty minutes. Even when his jumper finally connected during the 04/08 vs CLE matchup, his perfect shooting night for 10 points still yielded a -1.7 Impact score because he offered virtually zero playmaking or defensive resistance elsewhere on the floor. The wheels truly fell off during the 03/28 vs SAC tilt. Given a lengthy 25-minute leash, Vincent generated a disastrous -12.9 Impact score by sleepwalking through offensive possessions and hitting just one field goal. He occasionally found ways to contribute without filling the cup, notably posting a +3.0 Impact on 03/12 vs BKN. In that contest, he managed just six points but fought for three rebounds and kept the ball moving, providing the exact type of gritty stabilization a second unit needs. Unfortunately, those rare flashes of competence were entirely swallowed by a sea of games where he simply existed on the court without leaving any tangible fingerprints on the action.

Keaton Wallace
Guard Yr 1 53G (3S)
-7.7
3.5 pts
1.1 reb
1.8 ast
10.1 min

Keaton Wallace spent the back half of the season marooned at the end of the bench, enduring a bleak stretch of garbage-time cameos that culminated in one catastrophic spot start. His fleeting minutes were largely forgettable. Even when his jumper caught fire on 03/23 vs MEM, pouring in 9 points on three triples in just 8 minutes, his impact score remained a negative -1.4. That rating stayed in the red because his pure scoring burst was entirely offset by blown defensive assignments on the other end of the floor. The real disaster struck when he was unexpectedly thrust into the starting lineup on 04/12 vs MIA. Given 32 minutes to run the show, Wallace tallied 8 points, 4 rebounds, and 6 assists. However, he saddled his team with a horrific -14.5 impact score due to jarringly poor shot selection, chucking his way to a 2-for-13 shooting night that actively killed offensive momentum.

Jacob Toppin
Forward Yr 2 5G
-7.9
1.6 pts
0.2 reb
0.2 ast
3.4 min
Christian Koloko
Center Yr 3 14G (2S)
-8.1
3.1 pts
2.6 reb
0.6 ast
11.1 min

Complete offensive ineptitude defined Christian Koloko's late-season stretch. He was an absolute black hole. The big man looked utterly lost during a scoreless 16-minute shift on 01/31 vs IND. Clanking all three of his field goal attempts without registering a single assist dragged his Impact score down to a brutal -15.5. Even when given a rare starting nod on 02/03 vs MIA, he managed just two points on 0-for-3 shooting, earning a -14.0 Impact because his inability to hit shots completely crippled the team's floor spacing. Koloko finally saw extended run again on 04/12 vs MIA, grabbing eight rebounds in 21 minutes. Yet, his atrocious 1-for-5 shooting mark—which included two ill-advised misses from beyond the arc—produced another dismal -14.4 Impact. You simply cannot survive in the modern NBA when your mere presence routinely kills the offense.

W
@ NYK NYK
107 ATL NYK 106
NYK @ NYK
107 106
Mon, Apr 20
Playoffs Analysis
+1
L
@ NYK NYK
102 ATL NYK 113
NYK @ NYK
102 113
Sat, Apr 18
Playoffs Analysis
-11
L
@ MIA MIA
117 ATL MIA 143
MIA @ MIA
117 143
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
-26
W
vs CLE CLE
102 CLE ATL 124
CLE vs CLE
124 102
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
+22
L
@ CLE CLE
116 ATL CLE 122
CLE @ CLE
116 122
Wed, Apr 8
Analysis
-6
L
vs NYK NYK
108 NYK ATL 105
NYK vs NYK
105 108
Mon, Apr 6
Analysis
-3
W
@ BKN BKN
141 ATL BKN 107
BKN @ BKN
141 107
Fri, Apr 3
Analysis
+34
W
@ ORL ORL
130 ATL ORL 101
ORL @ ORL
130 101
Wed, Apr 1
Analysis
+29
W
vs BOS BOS
102 BOS ATL 112
BOS vs BOS
112 102
Mon, Mar 30
Analysis
+10
W
vs SAC SAC
113 SAC ATL 123
SAC vs SAC
123 113
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
+10
L
@ BOS BOS
102 ATL BOS 109
BOS @ BOS
102 109
Fri, Mar 27
Analysis
-7
W
@ DET DET
130 ATL DET 129
DET @ DET
130 129
Wed, Mar 25
Analysis
+1
W
vs MEM MEM
107 MEM ATL 146
MEM vs MEM
146 107
Mon, Mar 23
Analysis
+39
W
vs GSW GSW
110 GSW ATL 126
GSW vs GSW
126 110
Sat, Mar 21
Analysis
+16
L
@ HOU HOU
95 ATL HOU 117
HOU @ HOU
95 117
Fri, Mar 20
Analysis
-22
W
@ DAL DAL
135 ATL DAL 120
DAL @ DAL
135 120
Wed, Mar 18
Analysis
+15
W
vs ORL ORL
112 ORL ATL 124
ORL vs ORL
124 112
Mon, Mar 16
Analysis
+12
W
vs MIL MIL
99 MIL ATL 122
MIL vs MIL
122 99
Sat, Mar 14
Analysis
+23
W
vs BKN BKN
97 BKN ATL 108
BKN vs BKN
108 97
Thu, Mar 12
Analysis
+11
W
vs DAL DAL
112 DAL ATL 124
DAL vs DAL
124 112
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
+12
W
vs PHI PHI
116 PHI ATL 125
PHI vs PHI
125 116
Sat, Mar 7
Analysis
+9
W
@ MIL MIL
131 ATL MIL 113
MIL @ MIL
131 113
Wed, Mar 4
Analysis
+18
W
vs POR POR
101 POR ATL 135
POR vs POR
135 101
Sun, Mar 1
Analysis
+34
W
vs WAS WAS
96 WAS ATL 126
WAS vs WAS
126 96
Thu, Feb 26
Analysis
+30
W
vs WAS WAS
98 WAS ATL 119
WAS vs WAS
119 98
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
+21
W
vs BKN BKN
104 BKN ATL 115
BKN vs BKN
115 104
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
+11
L
vs MIA MIA
128 MIA ATL 97
MIA vs MIA
97 128
Fri, Feb 20
Analysis
-31
W
@ PHI PHI
117 ATL PHI 107
PHI @ PHI
117 107
Thu, Feb 19
Analysis
+10
L
@ CHA CHA
107 ATL CHA 110
CHA @ CHA
107 110
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
-3
L
@ MIN MIN
116 ATL MIN 138
MIN @ MIN
116 138
Mon, Feb 9
Analysis
-22
L
vs CHA CHA
126 CHA ATL 119
CHA vs CHA
119 126
Sat, Feb 7
Analysis
-7
W
vs UTA UTA
119 UTA ATL 121
UTA vs UTA
121 119
Thu, Feb 5
Analysis
+2
W
@ MIA MIA
127 ATL MIA 115
MIA @ MIA
127 115
Tue, Feb 3
Analysis
+12
L
@ IND IND
124 ATL IND 129
IND @ IND
124 129
Sat, Jan 31
Analysis
-5
L
vs HOU HOU
104 HOU ATL 86
HOU vs HOU
86 104
Thu, Jan 29
Analysis
-18
W
@ BOS BOS
117 ATL BOS 106
BOS @ BOS
117 106
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
+11
W
vs IND IND
116 IND ATL 132
IND vs IND
132 116
Mon, Jan 26
Analysis
+16
W
vs PHX PHX
103 PHX ATL 110
PHX vs PHX
110 103
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
+7
W
@ MEM MEM
124 ATL MEM 122
MEM @ MEM
124 122
Thu, Jan 22
Analysis
+2
L
vs MIL MIL
112 MIL ATL 110
MIL vs MIL
110 112
Mon, Jan 19
Analysis
-2
L
vs BOS BOS
132 BOS ATL 106
BOS vs BOS
106 132
Sun, Jan 18
Analysis
-26
L
@ POR POR
101 ATL POR 117
POR @ POR
101 117
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
-16
L
@ LAL LAL
116 ATL LAL 141
LAL @ LAL
116 141
Wed, Jan 14
Analysis
-25
W
@ GSW GSW
124 ATL GSW 111
GSW @ GSW
124 111
Mon, Jan 12
Analysis
+13
W
@ DEN DEN
110 ATL DEN 87
DEN @ DEN
110 87
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
+23
W
vs NOP NOP
100 NOP ATL 117
NOP vs NOP
117 100
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
+17
L
@ TOR TOR
100 ATL TOR 118
TOR @ TOR
100 118
Tue, Jan 6
Analysis
-18
L
@ TOR TOR
117 ATL TOR 134
TOR @ TOR
117 134
Sun, Jan 4
Analysis
-17
W
@ NYK NYK
111 ATL NYK 99
NYK @ NYK
111 99
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
+12
W
vs MIN MIN
102 MIN ATL 126
MIN vs MIN
126 102
Wed, Dec 31
Analysis
+24
L
@ OKC OKC
129 ATL OKC 140
OKC @ OKC
129 140
Tue, Dec 30
Analysis
-11
L
vs NYK NYK
128 NYK ATL 125
NYK vs NYK
125 128
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
-3
L
vs MIA MIA
126 MIA ATL 111
MIA vs MIA
111 126
Sat, Dec 27
Analysis
-15
L
vs CHI CHI
126 CHI ATL 123
CHI vs CHI
123 126
Wed, Dec 24
Analysis
-3
L
vs CHI CHI
152 CHI ATL 150
CHI vs CHI
150 152
Sun, Dec 21
Analysis
-2
L
vs SAS SAS
126 SAS ATL 98
SAS vs SAS
98 126
Sat, Dec 20
Analysis
-28
L
@ CHA CHA
126 ATL CHA 133
CHA @ CHA
126 133
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
-7
W
vs PHI PHI
117 PHI ATL 120
PHI vs PHI
120 117
Sun, Dec 14
Analysis
+3
L
@ DET DET
115 ATL DET 142
DET @ DET
115 142
Sat, Dec 13
Analysis
-27
W
@ WAS WAS
131 ATL WAS 116
WAS @ WAS
131 116
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
+15
L
vs DEN DEN
134 DEN ATL 133
DEN vs DEN
133 134
Sat, Dec 6
Analysis
-1
L
vs LAC LAC
115 LAC ATL 92
LAC vs LAC
92 115
Thu, Dec 4
Analysis
-23
L
@ DET DET
98 ATL DET 99
DET @ DET
98 99
Tue, Dec 2
Analysis
-1
W
@ PHI PHI
142 ATL PHI 134
PHI @ PHI
142 134
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
+8
W
vs CLE CLE
123 CLE ATL 130
CLE vs CLE
130 123
Sat, Nov 29
Analysis
+7
L
@ WAS WAS
113 ATL WAS 132
WAS @ WAS
113 132
Wed, Nov 26
Analysis
-19
W
vs CHA CHA
110 CHA ATL 113
CHA vs CHA
113 110
Sun, Nov 23
Analysis
+3
W
@ NOP NOP
115 ATL NOP 98
NOP @ NOP
115 98
Sun, Nov 23
Analysis
+17
L
@ SAS SAS
126 ATL SAS 135
SAS @ SAS
126 135
Fri, Nov 21
Analysis
-9
L
vs DET DET
120 DET ATL 112
DET vs DET
112 120
Wed, Nov 19
Analysis
-8
W
@ PHX PHX
124 ATL PHX 122
PHX @ PHX
124 122
Mon, Nov 17
Analysis
+2
W
@ UTA UTA
132 ATL UTA 122
UTA @ UTA
132 122
Fri, Nov 14
Analysis
+10
W
@ SAC SAC
133 ATL SAC 100
SAC @ SAC
133 100
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
+33
W
@ LAC LAC
105 ATL LAC 102
LAC @ LAC
105 102
Tue, Nov 11
Analysis
+3
W
vs LAL LAL
102 LAL ATL 122
LAL vs LAL
122 102
Sun, Nov 9
Analysis
+20
L
vs TOR TOR
109 TOR ATL 97
TOR vs TOR
97 109
Sat, Nov 8
Analysis
-12
W
vs ORL ORL
112 ORL ATL 127
ORL vs ORL
127 112
Wed, Nov 5
Analysis
+15
L
@ CLE CLE
109 ATL CLE 117
CLE @ CLE
109 117
Sun, Nov 2
Analysis
-8
W
@ IND IND
128 ATL IND 108
IND @ IND
128 108
Fri, Oct 31
Analysis
+20
W
@ BKN BKN
117 ATL BKN 112
BKN @ BKN
117 112
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
+5
L
@ CHI CHI
123 ATL CHI 128
CHI @ CHI
123 128
Mon, Oct 27
Analysis
-5
L
vs OKC OKC
117 OKC ATL 100
OKC vs OKC
100 117
Sat, Oct 25
Analysis
-17
W
@ ORL ORL
111 ATL ORL 107
ORL @ ORL
111 107
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
+4
L
vs TOR TOR
138 TOR ATL 118
TOR vs TOR
118 138
Wed, Oct 22
Analysis
-20