Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NOP lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
NOP 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Bridges Hard 7/19 -3.1
Knueppel Hard 7/16 0.0
Sexton 6/14 -1.1
Mann 8/13 +4.2
Simpson 3/6 0.0
Kalkbrenner Open 4/4 +2.4
James 1/4 -2.0
Diabaté Open 2/3 +0.3
Connaughton 1/2 +0.5
McNeeley Open 0/1 -1.2

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Murphy III 7/16 +1.2
Poole 3/14 -9.5
Alvarado Hard 7/11 +6.1
Fears 4/10 -1.4
Bey 6/9 +5.1
Jones Hard 4/9 +1.0
Matković Open 6/7 +2.2
Queen Open 5/7 +1.9
Hawkins Hard 1/4 -1.9
Looney 0/3 -3.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
NOP
39/82 Field Goals 43/90
47.6% Field Goal % 47.8%
13/38 3-Pointers 17/38
34.2% 3-Point % 44.7%
21/28 Free Throws 13/19
75.0% Free Throw % 68.4%
59.4% True Shooting % 59.0%
61 Total Rebounds 44
15 Offensive 13
34 Defensive 26
20 Assists 27
1.00 Assist/TO Ratio 2.08
19 Turnovers 12
8 Steals 9
6 Blocks 3
23 Fouls 20
48 Points in Paint 46
11 Fast Break Pts 25
11 Points off TOs 22
17 Second Chance Pts 14
37 Bench Points 62
9 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jose Alvarado
18 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 30.6 MIN
+21.36
2
Derik Queen
12 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 18.0 MIN
+19.32
3
Ryan Kalkbrenner
10 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 30.1 MIN
+19.08
4
Trey Murphy III
21 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 37.2 MIN
+18.11
5
Miles Bridges
22 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 37.0 MIN
+14.55
6
Karlo Matković
13 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 15.1 MIN
+13.32
7
Saddiq Bey
17 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 26.8 MIN
+12.38
8
Kon Knueppel
20 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 32.4 MIN
+11.73
9
Tre Mann
18 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 24.4 MIN
+11.58
10
Moussa Diabaté
6 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 17.9 MIN
+9.91
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 TEAM offensive REBOUND 112–116
Q4 0:01 MISS K. Knueppel 29' pullup 3PT 112–116
Q4 0:03 S. James REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 112–116
Q4 0:05 MISS S. Bey Free Throw 2 of 2 112–116
Q4 0:05 S. Bey Free Throw 1 of 2 (17 PTS) 112–116
Q4 0:05 S. James personal FOUL (3 PF) (Bey 2 FT) 112–115
Q4 0:05 S. Bey REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 112–115
Q4 0:09 MISS M. Bridges 25' step back 3PT 112–115
Q4 0:13 T. Murphy III Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 112–115
Q4 0:13 T. Murphy III Free Throw 1 of 2 (20 PTS) 112–114
Q4 0:13 R. Kalkbrenner personal FOUL (4 PF) (Murphy III 2 FT) 112–113
Q4 0:13 D. Queen STEAL (4 STL) 112–113
Q4 0:13 S. James bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 112–113
Q4 0:16 J. Alvarado 26' 3PT step back (18 PTS) 112–113
Q4 0:23 T. Murphy III REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 112–110

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

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.2m
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.9

Lethal catch-and-shoot gravity warped the opposing defense, constantly opening up driving lanes for his teammates. He paired that perimeter threat with disciplined closeouts on the other end, resulting in a sturdy two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 35.9m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Elite point-of-attack disruption and passing-lane gambles generated strong defensive metrics, but his overall impact was dragged down by clunky offensive execution. Stagnant off-ball movement and spacing issues allowed the defense to sag off him, stalling out half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jordan Poole 27.0m
11
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.9

Horrific shot selection completely derailed the offensive flow, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of wasted possessions and long rebounds triggered opponent transition opportunities, burying his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 17.4m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Relentless downhill pressure forced the defense into rotation, compensating for a slightly inefficient shooting night. He navigated screens beautifully on the defensive end, blowing up dribble hand-offs to stifle opponent momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -49.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevon Looney 15.0m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.6

Bricking multiple bunnies around the rim severely stunted the offense during his minutes. While he held his ground in post-up defensive situations, his inability to finish through contact or threaten the defense as a roller made him a significant net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -75.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+15.3

Absolute chaos creation defined this masterclass, utilizing backcourt pressure and passing-lane jumps to generate a massive +7.0 hustle rating. He capitalized on the resulting transition scrambles by knocking down open trail threes, completely tilting the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Saddiq Bey 26.8m
17
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.2

Red-hot perimeter shooting provided a massive offensive lift, but defensive lapses at the point of attack gave almost all of that value right back. Opposing wings consistently beat him off the dribble, neutralizing his highly efficient scoring output.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 18.0m
12
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.2

Operated as an elite offensive hub from the high post, picking apart back-cuts and cutters with pinpoint passing. Combined with suffocating interior defense and flawless defensive rebounding, he completely dominated his matchup on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense +6.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Struggled to find any rhythm coming off screens, rushing his mechanics and misfiring on his perimeter looks. His lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to cheat into the driving lanes, stalling the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite rim-running and decisive finishing in the pick-and-roll punished the defense every time they trapped the ball handler. He optimized his minutes by securing the defensive glass and avoiding the cheap fouls that often limit his aggression.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 37.0m
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.7

A heavy diet of contested jumpers torpedoed his efficiency, as he misfired repeatedly from beyond the arc. His defensive rotations and weak-side help kept him afloat on that end, but the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions resulted in a neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 32.4m
20
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.6

Despite strong offensive volume, his overall impact slipped into the red due to erratic perimeter shot selection and a high volume of misses from deep. Poor transition defense and likely unforced errors dragged down his net rating, completely negating his solid work on the glass.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +11.4
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sion James 31.3m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive invisibility severely handicapped his stint on the floor, failing to bend the defense or create advantages on the perimeter. While he showed flashes of disruptive point-of-attack defense, his inability to space the floor allowed opponents to freely pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Absolute interior dominance defined his minutes, anchoring the paint with textbook verticality to generate a massive +8.2 defensive impact. He never forced a bad look offensively, capitalizing purely on dump-offs and putbacks to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +11.1
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
S Collin Sexton 29.6m
17
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.4

Tunnel vision on drives led to a slew of empty possessions and live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. His lack of rebounding presence from the guard spot further compounded the negative swing, completely overshadowing his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Tre Mann 24.4m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Sizzling isolation scoring masked underlying issues with ball security and defensive positioning. Opponents routinely targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding away the value of his highly efficient shot-making.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -9.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Disciplined rim protection and timely weak-side rotations drove a highly effective defensive stint. He played perfectly within his role, setting bruising screens and avoiding the costly fouls that often plague young bigs.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
KJ Simpson 13.3m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided a brief offensive spark with decisive drives, but gave it right back through poor screen navigation on the defensive end. His inability to stay in front of his assignment at the point of attack kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a liability, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter to double-team ball handlers. Sluggish closeouts and zero hustle plays further tanked his impact during a highly ineffective rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Operated strictly as a floor-spacer and connector during his brief run, making quick decisions to keep the offense flowing. Solid positional rebounding and veteran defensive awareness kept him from being a negative, though he rarely tilted the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0