Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 187 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram Hard 7/19 -3.1
Barnes 5/16 -6.9
Barrett 7/15 -1.9
Quickley Hard 5/11 +2.5
Mamukelashvili Open 5/9 -0.4
Dick Hard 3/7 +1.4
Poeltl Open 4/5 +2.1
Murray-Boyles Hard 1/4 -0.9
Shead Hard 0/3 -3.1
Walter Hard 0/1 -1.1

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Risacher 6/16 -6.3
Porziņģis 4/16 -8.3
Johnson 8/14 +2.1
Alexander-Walker 7/14 +1.4
Okongwu 2/12 -10.0
Daniels 2/10 -5.9
Gueye 1/6 -4.5
Wallace Hard 3/5 +2.1
Krejčí Hard 0/3 -2.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
ATL
37/91 Field Goals 33/96
40.7% Field Goal % 34.4%
12/38 3-Pointers 9/38
31.6% 3-Point % 23.7%
23/25 Free Throws 22/23
92.0% Free Throw % 95.7%
53.4% True Shooting % 45.7%
55 Total Rebounds 65
13 Offensive 19
35 Defensive 35
23 Assists 24
1.77 Assist/TO Ratio 1.26
12 Turnovers 15
11 Steals 8
6 Blocks 7
21 Fouls 19
44 Points in Paint 42
21 Fast Break Pts 11
17 Points off TOs 19
14 Second Chance Pts 21
26 Bench Points 16
12 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Immanuel Quickley
18 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 34.2 MIN
+17.94
2
Kristaps Porziņģis
17 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 29.7 MIN
+17.14
3
Scottie Barnes
14 PTS · 10 REB · 4 AST · 35.1 MIN
+14.94
4
Sandro Mamukelashvili
12 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 20.7 MIN
+14.12
5
Jakob Poeltl
12 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 25.2 MIN
+13.91
6
Zaccharie Risacher
16 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 30.4 MIN
+13.73
7
RJ Barrett
19 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 33.3 MIN
+13.6
8
Dyson Daniels
7 PTS · 8 REB · 8 AST · 34.8 MIN
+11.87
9
Brandon Ingram
20 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 34.7 MIN
+11.87
10
Jalen Johnson
21 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 33.0 MIN
+10.19
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 Z. Risacher REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 109–97
Q4 0:00 K. Porziņģis BLOCK (4 BLK) 109–97
Q4 0:00 MISS B. Ingram 20' turnaround fadeaway Shot - blocked 109–97
Q4 0:02 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–97
Q4 0:04 MISS I. Quickley 25' 3PT 109–97
Q4 0:11 B. Ingram REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 109–97
Q4 0:14 MISS Z. Risacher 19' Jump Shot 109–97
Q4 0:22 S. Barnes Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 109–97
Q4 0:22 S. Barnes Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 108–97
Q4 0:22 Z. Risacher take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Barnes 2 FT) 107–97
Q4 0:25 J. Poeltl REBOUND (Off:3 Def:7) 107–97
Q4 0:29 MISS D. Daniels 25' 3PT 107–97
Q4 0:41 R. Barrett 25' 3PT (19 PTS) (I. Quickley 6 AST) 107–97
Q4 0:51 K. Porziņģis Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 104–97
Q4 0:51 K. Porziņģis Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 104–96

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

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 34.8m
7
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite perimeter ball pressure and switchability kept his head above water despite a disastrous shooting touch. He bricked multiple wide-open looks, which allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates. His ability to navigate screens and blow up dribble hand-offs was the only thing preventing a negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +9.2
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Johnson 33.0m
21
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.2

Scoring efficiency masked underlying issues that dragged his net impact firmly into the negative. Poor weak-side defensive awareness and likely live-ball turnovers fueled opponent transition runs. Despite finding success as a roll man, his mistakes in the margins proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Clanked his way through a high-volume shooting night, severely limiting his overall offensive impact. He salvaged a slightly positive net rating by utilizing his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest wing shooters. Settling for contested early-clock jumpers prevented him from finding a true rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Overcame an absolutely brutal shooting performance by transforming into an elite rim deterrent. His massive +7.6 defensive rating was driven by altering countless shots in the paint and securing contested defensive rebounds. Opposing guards completely abandoned their driving lanes whenever he rotated over.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely negated a highly efficient scoring night. He struggled mightily to stay in front of straight-line drives, forcing his bigs into compromising rotations. A lack of hustle plays and poor closeouts defined a shift that actively hurt the team's bottom line.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Offensive futility around the basket cratered his net impact, as he repeatedly failed to finish through contact. Missing 10 shots as a frontcourt player destroyed the team's half-court efficiency and sparked opponent fast breaks. He offered some resistance in the post, but the empty offensive trips were too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +12.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Provided steady, mistake-free minutes by taking only what the defense gave him. His positive impact was driven by disciplined closeouts and an ability to stay attached to off-ball shooters. He capitalized on broken plays with smart cuts, ensuring his floor time was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Rushed his offensive opportunities, clanking multiple perimeter looks that derailed the second unit's spacing. He struggled to anchor his position on the block, getting pushed out of prime rebounding real estate. A failure to execute within the offensive flow dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.0

A complete lack of offensive aggression and poor execution resulted in a team-worst impact score. He passed up open looks only to force contested late-clock actions, completely bogging down the offensive rhythm. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, creating a permanent 5-on-4 advantage.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 35.0m
14
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.7

Overcame a brutal shooting night by anchoring the interior defense and generating second-chance opportunities. His relentless energy on the glass and switchability on the perimeter salvaged a positive net impact. A tendency to force contested paint shots limited his overall efficiency, but his hustle plays kept the team afloat.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +8.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Brandon Ingram 34.7m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

Inefficient perimeter shooting dragged his overall impact into the negative despite decent defensive metrics. The sheer volume of empty possessions from his 12 missed field goals stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to set up. He settled for heavily contested mid-range looks rather than attacking the rim, capping his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+15.8

Elite point-of-attack defense and constant off-ball movement fueled a highly productive shift. He disrupted passing lanes and generated crucial transition opportunities, validating his strong +8.2 defensive rating. His willingness to take and make rhythm triples kept the floor perfectly spaced for secondary slashers.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 33.3m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Offensive aggression yielded a strong statistical profile, but defensive lapses on the perimeter significantly capped his total impact. He found success attacking downhill in transition, though half-court tunnel vision likely led to empty possessions. A lack of weak-side awareness allowed too many open looks for his primary assignment, bleeding points back.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 23.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 25.2m
12
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.7

Dominated the paint with elite rim protection and flawless shot selection, driving a massive +12.9 net impact. He refused to waste possessions, capitalizing on high-percentage drop-offs while erasing opponent drives on the other end. His verticality in pick-and-roll coverage completely neutralized the opposition's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +12.7
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 30.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

Provided a massive spark off the bench by combining efficient inside scoring with surprisingly stout positional defense. His ability to hedge screens and recover quickly disrupted the opponent's secondary actions. Smart cutting along the baseline consistently punished defensive over-rotations.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Struggled to find a rhythm within the offensive flow, resulting in a noticeable drag on the team's net rating. Hesitancy to attack closeouts led to stalled possessions and forced late-clock attempts. While he maintained decent defensive positioning, his inability to generate offensive pressure proved costly.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Jamal Shead 13.8m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.1

Offensive invisibility completely tanked his impact score despite commendable effort on the defensive end. Missing every perimeter attempt allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. He worked hard to navigate screens defensively, but the lack of scoring gravity made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 13.4m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Lethal perimeter marksmanship in a short stint stretched the defense to its breaking point. He capitalized immediately on defensive miscommunications, punishing drop coverages with quick-trigger triples. The constant threat of his off-ball gravity opened up the paint for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Played mostly invisible minutes, failing to attempt a shot inside the arc or battle for positioning on the glass. His defensive rotations were adequate enough to prevent a massive negative swing, but he offered zero offensive resistance. The lack of aggression rendered his floor time essentially neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +84.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.4

Failed to leave a positive mark during a brief rotational stint, looking out of sync with the offensive sets. A quick missed jumper and lack of rebounding presence prevented him from establishing any rhythm. He was frequently caught ball-watching on the defensive perimeter, resulting in a quick negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -69.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2