Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 5/15 -3.9
Claxton Open 8/12 +1.9
Thomas 2/9 -5.9
Martin Hard 2/8 -2.4
Sharpe Open 6/7 +4.1
Saraf 2/7 -4.0
Dëmin Hard 4/6 +6.4
Mann 4/6 +3.3
Clowney Hard 1/6 -2.9
Wilson Hard 3/5 +2.2

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller 8/19 -2.5
Ball Hard 7/15 +2.3
Bridges 6/11 +2.6
Sexton 4/9 -1.4
Diabaté Open 5/7 +2.1
Salaün 4/7 +1.8
Mann 4/7 +1.7
Knueppel Hard 4/6 +4.8
Kalkbrenner Open 5/6 +1.8
James Open 1/3 -1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
CHA
39/88 Field Goals 48/90
44.3% Field Goal % 53.3%
14/40 3-Pointers 17/36
35.0% 3-Point % 47.2%
25/34 Free Throws 23/33
73.5% Free Throw % 69.7%
56.8% True Shooting % 65.1%
44 Total Rebounds 67
12 Offensive 14
26 Defensive 36
25 Assists 33
1.47 Assist/TO Ratio 1.94
17 Turnovers 16
8 Steals 5
3 Blocks 5
28 Fouls 25
46 Points in Paint 60
5 Fast Break Pts 23
12 Points off TOs 17
24 Second Chance Pts 14
52 Bench Points 52
3 Largest Lead 22
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Miles Bridges
18 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 30.8 MIN
+19.64
2
Nic Claxton
17 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 23.0 MIN
+14.95
3
Brandon Miller
25 PTS · 0 REB · 7 AST · 30.5 MIN
+14.5
4
Moussa Diabaté
13 PTS · 9 REB · 0 AST · 21.2 MIN
+14.04
5
Tre Mann
12 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 20.6 MIN
+11.07
6
Egor Dëmin
14 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 22.3 MIN
+10.9
7
Collin Sexton
15 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 17.2 MIN
+10.64
8
Terance Mann
13 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 19.4 MIN
+10.46
9
Ryan Kalkbrenner
10 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 26.8 MIN
+8.84
10
LaMelo Ball
20 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 33.6 MIN
+7.83
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 CHA shot clock Team TURNOVER 117–136
Q4 0:34 E. Dëmin 28' 3PT (14 PTS) (N. Traore 1 AST) 117–136
Q4 0:44 M. Bridges 3PT (18 PTS) (T. Mann 6 AST) 114–136
Q4 1:01 M. Bridges REBOUND (Off:2 Def:9) 114–133
Q4 1:04 MISS N. Traore 26' pullup 3PT 114–133
Q4 1:10 M. Diabaté 3-second-violation TURNOVER (2 TO) 114–133
Q4 1:12 M. Diabaté REBOUND (Off:4 Def:5) 114–133
Q4 1:13 MISS M. Diabaté driving Layup 114–133
Q4 1:30 J. Wilson 3PT (8 PTS) (T. Martin 5 AST) 114–133
Q4 1:35 N. Clowney REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 111–133
Q4 1:38 MISS B. Miller 7' turnaround fadeaway Shot 111–133
Q4 1:53 M. Diabaté REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 111–133
Q4 1:56 MISS T. Martin 25' 3PT 111–133
Q4 1:57 N. Clowney REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 111–133
Q4 2:02 B. Miller BLOCK (1 BLK) 111–133

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

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S LaMelo Ball 33.6m
20
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.2

Impact cratered due to a string of careless, live-ball turnovers that directly ignited opponent fast breaks. While he orchestrated the half-court offense well in spurts, his lack of resistance at the point of attack (-0.7 Def) allowed constant dribble penetration. The flashy playmaking completely masked how much value he gave back through sloppy execution and defensive apathy.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +4.5
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 30.9m
18
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.9

Imposed his will physically on both ends, utilizing his strength to bully smaller defenders in the mid-post. His exceptional weak-side rim protection (+6.5 Def) erased multiple blown assignments by the guards. A defining sequence of back-to-back defensive stops followed by transition finishes completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +14.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 30.5m
25
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.7

Carried a massive offensive burden, but his tendency to settle for heavily contested pull-up threes early in the clock limited his overall efficiency. He offset some of the poor shot selection by making sharp, decisive reads out of double teams to keep the offense flowing. The low net impact relative to his usage reflects the empty possessions caused by his streaky perimeter execution.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.4%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Anchored the paint with masterful verticality, altering countless drives without committing fouls (+5.3 Def). He generated massive value through relentless screen-setting and offensive rebounding (+4.0 Hustle) that kept possessions alive. His ability to consistently execute the pick-and-roll dive created wide-open looks for the perimeter shooters.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +13.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Kon Knueppel 25.5m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Knocked down open looks with great efficiency, yet his overall impact was severely dragged down by poor off-ball defensive awareness. He repeatedly lost his man on baseline cuts during a pivotal third-quarter stretch, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions. The stark contrast between his clean shooting and negative net score highlights the hidden cost of those defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.2

Dominated the interior matchups by outworking opposing bigs for deep post positioning before the catch. His elite pick-and-roll coverage (+5.1 Def) completely neutralized the opponent's primary offensive action. A defining stretch of consecutive defensive stops and rim-runs in the third quarter showcased his immense two-way value.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +11.4
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Tre Mann 20.6m
12
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.4

Delivered a masterclass in high-energy basketball, generating massive value through relentless deflections and offensive rebounding (+8.4 Hustle). He completely suffocated opposing guards at the point of attack (+4.7 Def), forcing multiple rushed decisions late in the shot clock. This breakout performance was defined by a sheer refusal to be outworked on any single possession.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Changed the game's tempo immediately upon checking in by applying relentless, full-court pressure on the ball. His willingness to dive for loose balls and fight through heavy screens (+3.8 Hustle) set a physical tone for the second unit. A crucial second-quarter stretch of aggressive downhill attacks perfectly collapsed the defense and generated high-quality looks.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications by making timely, decisive cuts along the baseline. He maintained solid positional discipline on the other end (+1.2 Def), rarely biting on pump fakes or gambling in the passing lanes. It was a highly controlled, mistake-free performance that kept the rotation stable.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 16.6m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

Provided sturdy on-ball defense (+2.7 Def) but was a complete non-factor on the offensive end. His hesitation to shoot open catch-and-shoot looks allowed the defense to aggressively double-team the primary ball handlers. This severe floor-spacing issue bogged down the half-court offense and resulted in a negative overall stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.8

Impact cratered due to forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock that short-circuited offensive momentum. While he grabbed a few timely defensive boards, his inability to punish smaller defenders in the mid-post resulted in empty possessions. The negative swing was heavily driven by transition points allowed off his long misses.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cam Thomas 24.1m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Value plummeted as a result of severe tunnel vision and settling for heavily contested isolation looks. He stalled the offensive flow during critical second-half stretches, allowing the defense to easily set their half-court shell. The resulting empty trips fueled opponent fast breaks, severely dragging down his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 23.0m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

Dominated the interior by consistently beating his man down the floor for deep post positioning. His stellar defensive positioning (+3.2 Def) disrupted multiple pick-and-roll sequences and forced opponents into low-percentage floaters. A dominant third-quarter stretch of rim-running effectively put the game out of reach.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ben Saraf 20.0m
8
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Generated significant extra possessions through aggressive offensive rebounding and loose-ball recoveries (+3.9 Hustle). However, his overall effectiveness was neutralized by erratic finishing around the basket in traffic. A tendency to force passes into tight windows against set defenses ultimately pushed his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Terance Mann 19.4m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Broke out of his recent scoring slump by attacking closeouts with aggression, generating massive value through relentless energy plays (+6.5 Hustle). His overall impact was slightly muted by late-game rotational lapses on the perimeter. The sheer volume of secondary effort plays defined his night and kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.7

Provided a massive defensive lift by completely neutralizing his primary assignment on the perimeter (+5.0 Def). That lockdown effort was entirely undone by disastrous offensive decision-making and forced drives into heavily populated paint areas. The massive gap between his defensive value and overall impact highlights how much his missed shots fueled opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Egor Dëmin 22.3m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Punished drop coverage relentlessly with decisive, in-rhythm perimeter shooting. His active hands in the passing lanes (+2.5 Def) sparked several key transition opportunities during the second quarter. The combination of elite shot selection and timely defensive rotations cemented a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Clowney 20.2m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Struggled to find any offensive rhythm, frequently rushing his release against heavy closeouts. He remained highly engaged on the other end, anchoring the weak side with crisp rotations and verticality (+2.6 Def). Unfortunately, his offensive spacing issues allowed the defense to pack the paint, resulting in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Completely vanished on the offensive end, displaying uncharacteristic passivity that allowed his defender to freely roam as a free safety. He salvaged some value by locking down the point of attack (+4.5 Def) and fighting through screens. Still, his inability to punish closeouts severely cramped the floor spacing for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Wilson 14.7m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Found success spotting up in the corners, but his lack of engagement in the dirty work (+0.2 Hustle) limited his overall effectiveness. He frequently leaked out early in transition rather than securing long rebounds, giving up crucial second-chance points. This lack of physical presence on the glass ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Capitalized on every touch around the rim by sealing his man early and finishing through contact. His physical screen-setting freed up ball handlers, while his sturdy interior presence (+2.2 Def) deterred drives. A brief stint of foul trouble was the only thing keeping his overall impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -13.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Abandoned his usual scoring mindset to focus entirely on hounding opposing ball-handlers at the point of attack. This relentless perimeter pressure (+4.5 Def) completely disrupted the opponent's offensive timing and forced multiple shot-clock violations. His willingness to embrace a gritty, defense-first role salvaged his value on an otherwise quiet shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -49.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Looked completely out of sync during his brief stint, routinely getting caught ball-watching on the defensive end (-1.4 Def). His hesitation to attack closeouts allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. A specific sequence of missed back-door cuts perfectly encapsulated a highly passive, negative-impact performance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1