Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BKN lead ATL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ATL 2P — 3P —
BKN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Alexander-Walker 7/17 -2.9
Johnson 10/16 +2.4
Porziņģis 6/14 -1.2
Okongwu 4/10 -2.5
Daniels Open 3/10 -5.6
Kennard 5/8 +4.9
Risacher 2/7 -2.8
Gueye 4/6 +1.7
Young Hard 2/4 +0.6
Wallace Hard 1/1 +2.1

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. Hard 12/20 +8.2
Thomas 6/20 -6.4
Claxton Open 8/14 -1.5
Mann 5/9 +1.0
Martin 5/7 +4.7
Dëmin Hard 1/6 -3.4
Clowney Hard 1/4 -2.5
Wilson 1/3 -0.4
Sharpe Open 1/3 -1.7
Saraf Hard 0/2 -2.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ATL
BKN
44/93 Field Goals 40/88
47.3% Field Goal % 45.5%
13/33 3-Pointers 11/37
39.4% 3-Point % 29.7%
16/22 Free Throws 21/27
72.7% Free Throw % 77.8%
57.0% True Shooting % 56.1%
50 Total Rebounds 60
13 Offensive 15
31 Defensive 32
33 Assists 23
4.12 Assist/TO Ratio 1.44
8 Turnovers 16
11 Steals 4
8 Blocks 4
26 Fouls 17
50 Points in Paint 46
18 Fast Break Pts 5
27 Points off TOs 7
15 Second Chance Pts 13
59 Bench Points 32
17 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Michael Porter Jr.
32 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 33.0 MIN
+23.26
2
Jalen Johnson
23 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 29.4 MIN
+21.97
3
Luke Kennard
17 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 28.1 MIN
+17.31
4
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
18 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 32.0 MIN
+16.62
5
Nic Claxton
18 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 28.6 MIN
+16.19
6
Tyrese Martin
13 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 19.9 MIN
+15.27
7
Kristaps Porziņģis
14 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 24.6 MIN
+13.52
8
Onyeka Okongwu
12 PTS · 14 REB · 2 AST · 28.1 MIN
+12.3
9
Dyson Daniels
7 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 34.6 MIN
+8.97
10
Terance Mann
11 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 29.5 MIN
+8.67
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 O. Okongwu REBOUND (Off:5 Def:9) 117–112
Q4 0:08 MISS C. Thomas 25' fadeaway 3PT 117–112
Q4 0:10 T. Martin REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 117–112
Q4 0:13 MISS M. Porter Jr. 3PT 117–112
Q4 0:15 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–112
Q4 0:15 N. Alexander-Walker BLOCK (3 BLK) 117–112
Q4 0:15 MISS C. Thomas driving Layup - blocked 117–112
Q4 0:26 L. Kennard Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 117–112
Q4 0:26 L. Kennard Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 116–112
Q4 0:26 T. Mann personal FOUL (5 PF) (Kennard 2 FT) 115–112
Q4 0:26 D. Daniels REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 115–112
Q4 0:26 MISS N. Claxton tip Layup 115–112
Q4 0:26 N. Claxton REBOUND (Off:3 Def:8) 115–112
Q4 0:29 MISS N. Claxton Hook 115–112
Q4 0:50 M. Porter Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 115–112

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

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Cam Thomas 35.2m
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

A disastrous negative impact fueled by severe tunnel vision and bricking a massive volume of looks against set defenses. His heavy-usage approach completely derailed the offensive flow, as he forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock. The scoring totals were entirely empty calories that actively harmed the team's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
32
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+26.4

An absolute flamethrower performance where elite shot-making over heavy contests drove a massive box impact. He punished defensive lapses from all three levels, requiring zero plays run for him to dominate the offensive flow. Competent defensive rotations ensured his scoring barrage translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +25.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +8.3
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Terance Mann 29.5m
11
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.3

Scraped out a slightly positive impact by pairing an aggressive offensive resurgence with excellent hustle metrics. He finally broke through his recent shooting woes by attacking the paint rather than settling for outside looks. The constant off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries kept his overall value above water.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 28.6m
18
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.4

Dominated the interior with a steady diet of rolls to the rim and high-percentage putbacks. His vertical spacing and rim protection dictated the terms of engagement in the paint all night. Surging past his recent offensive averages, he provided an essential two-way anchor for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +11.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ben Saraf 12.4m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-24.4

Completely cratered the team's momentum during his brief stint, posting a brutal overall impact. He looked entirely out of sync offensively, failing to connect on any attempts while bleeding value on the defensive end. Even a few decent hustle plays couldn't salvage a highly detrimental rotation shift.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Noah Clowney 24.6m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Strong defensive rotations were completely undone by an inability to convert anything on the offensive end. He bricked all his looks from beyond the arc, allowing his defender to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. The resulting spacing issues suffocated the offense while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 21.1m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Faded into the background offensively, taking very few shots and failing to replicate his recent scoring punch. This extreme passivity stalled the second unit's momentum, dragging his overall impact into the negative. He simply didn't generate enough pressure or secondary playmaking to justify his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Provided a massive, unexpected spark off the bench by punishing defensive closeouts with ruthless efficiency. He capitalized on every sliver of daylight, turning low usage into high-yield offensive generation. This opportunistic shot-making drove a stellar impact in a highly productive reserve shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

Proved that you don't need high usage to dominate a game, anchoring the second unit with a massive defensive impact. He controlled the paint through sheer physicality, deterring drives and securing crucial loose balls. His low offensive volume was a feature, not a bug, allowing him to focus entirely on dirty work.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Egor Dëmin 16.2m
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Settled almost exclusively for perimeter jumpers and failed to connect, resulting in a steep negative impact. His inability to pressure the rim made him easy to guard and stalled out half-court possessions. While he offered some resistance defensively, it wasn't nearly enough to offset the offensive dead weight.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 34.6m
7
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.7

Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle couldn't completely erase the damage of a steep offensive drop-off. He struggled to find his typical scoring rhythm, missing several manageable looks inside the arc. The stark contrast between his defensive tenacity and offensive hesitation resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 29.4m
23
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+20.0

A massive positive impact driven by highly efficient interior finishing and consistent scoring gravity. He maintained his recent offensive tear while adding solid hustle metrics to keep possessions alive. His ability to score efficiently without forcing bad looks from deep anchored the lineup.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +18.2
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Impact tanked despite decent defensive grades because of severe offensive inefficiency. He couldn't replicate his recent hot shooting form, clanking multiple perimeter looks to drag down his overall value. The lack of secondary playmaking further magnified his struggles to find the bottom of the net.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.0

Overcame a streaky perimeter shooting night by utilizing his size to generate secondary advantages. A strong hustle rating indicates active rim contests and loose ball recoveries that buoyed his positive overall impact. Even when the deep ball isn't falling, his floor-spacing gravity opens up driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 72.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Trae Young 7.1m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Made a quick, efficient cameo before exiting early, generating a modest positive impact in limited action. He avoided settling for deep jumpers, instead creating high-percentage looks during his brief stint. His hustle metrics were surprisingly robust for a short shift, maximizing his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.7

Carried tremendous defensive value by hounding ball-handlers and blowing up actions at the point of attack. That elite perimeter resistance comfortably outweighed a high-volume, low-efficiency shooting night where he forced too many looks from deep. His willingness to do the dirty work ensured his overall impact remained firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
Luke Kennard 28.1m
17
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.5

Lethal floor-spacing drove a highly efficient offensive showing, punishing defensive rotations with quick-trigger triples. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, his perimeter gravity fundamentally altered the opponent's defensive geometry. He even chipped in surprisingly positive defensive metrics to round out a stellar shift.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.1%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +27.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.9

Generated a positive impact primarily through sheer volume on the glass, extending possessions and limiting second-chance opportunities. He settled for too many perimeter jumpers instead of attacking the paint, which dragged down his scoring efficiency. However, his physical presence in the paint provided a reliable stabilizing force.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +17.8
Defense -4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Capitalized on a short rotation stint with decisive, highly efficient finishing around the basket. He shattered his recent shooting slumps by taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense. Solid defensive positioning ensured he wasn't giving back the value he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.2

A severely limited offensive role and negative defensive metrics dragged his overall impact into the red. While he didn't miss a shot, his extreme passivity allowed the defense to completely ignore him and load up elsewhere. He failed to generate enough secondary stats or hustle plays to justify his floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1