Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 7/17 +3.0
Knecht Hard 5/11 +1.0
Hachimura 3/9 -1.2
Vanderbilt Open 4/9 -2.1
Smith Jr. Hard 1/8 -5.0
LaRavia Open 4/7 +0.6
James 4/6 +3.0
Ayton Open 5/5 +3.0
Smart 2/4 -0.2
Hayes Open 2/4 -1.1

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Wallace Hard 5/15 -0.3
Risacher 7/14 +1.9
Krejčí Hard 6/14 -1.0
Okongwu 6/14 -2.8
Gueye Hard 8/12 +7.8
Newell 7/12 +1.9
Daniels Open 5/8 +1.0
Houstan 2/3 +1.3
Toppin Open 2/2 +1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
ATL
37/81 Field Goals 48/94
45.7% Field Goal % 51.1%
12/30 3-Pointers 16/39
40.0% 3-Point % 41.0%
16/20 Free Throws 10/11
80.0% Free Throw % 90.9%
56.8% True Shooting % 61.7%
53 Total Rebounds 44
13 Offensive 8
34 Defensive 30
23 Assists 37
1.15 Assist/TO Ratio 3.36
19 Turnovers 11
8 Steals 13
5 Blocks 6
11 Fouls 14
46 Points in Paint 62
8 Fast Break Pts 22
15 Points off TOs 36
17 Second Chance Pts 13
43 Bench Points 46
1 Largest Lead 30
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Mouhamed Gueye
21 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 34.2 MIN
+23.47
2
Asa Newell
17 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 26.6 MIN
+21.92
3
Zaccharie Risacher
19 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 27.1 MIN
+17.35
4
Jarred Vanderbilt
12 PTS · 18 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+16.05
5
Onyeka Okongwu
12 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 32.1 MIN
+15.84
6
Jake LaRavia
13 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 23.2 MIN
+15.8
7
Dyson Daniels
10 PTS · 8 REB · 13 AST · 36.1 MIN
+15.38
8
Luka Dončić
22 PTS · 5 REB · 11 AST · 26.6 MIN
+9.67
9
Bronny James
9 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 18.2 MIN
+9.51
10
Dalton Knecht
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 24.6 MIN
+8.99
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:20 A. Newell REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 102–122
Q4 0:23 MISS D. Knecht 15' step back Shot 102–122
Q4 0:31 D. Knecht REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 102–122
Q4 0:35 MISS A. Newell running 3PT 102–122
Q4 0:40 J. Toppin REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 102–122
Q4 0:43 MISS M. Kleber 26' 3PT 102–122
Q4 0:59 J. Toppin tip DUNK (4 PTS) 102–122
Q4 0:59 J. Toppin REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 102–120
Q4 1:01 MISS V. Krejčí 10' driving floating Shot 102–120
Q4 1:15 J. Vanderbilt Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 102–120
Q4 1:15 J. Vanderbilt Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 101–120
Q4 1:15 V. Krejčí shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Vanderbilt 2 FT) 100–120
Q4 1:15 J. Vanderbilt REBOUND (Off:4 Def:14) 100–120
Q4 1:16 MISS J. Vanderbilt driving finger roll Layup 100–120
Q4 1:31 V. Krejčí driving finger roll Layup (17 PTS) 100–120

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 36.1m
10
pts
8
reb
13
ast
Impact
+5.1

Masterful playmaking was entirely undone by a brutal string of live-ball turnovers and defensive gambles. While he set up teammates beautifully, his risky passes directly fueled easy opponent transition scores. The massive negative swing from these unforced errors completely erased the value of his otherwise brilliant offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keaton Wallace 35.8m
14
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.8

A surprising scoring surge was completely hollowed out by atrocious defensive positioning and poor ball security. He bled points on the other end by repeatedly dying on screens and losing his man off the ball. The sheer volume of defensive breakdowns and sloppy turnovers turned his breakout offensive night into a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mouhamed Gueye 34.2m
21
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.8

A massive, unexpected offensive explosion completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. He paired this scoring leap with dominant rim protection and relentless activity on the offensive glass. By converting high-value looks and anchoring the paint defensively, he dictated the terms of engagement during his entire shift.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 32.1m
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.7

Elite defensive anchoring and switchability kept his overall impact firmly in the green despite some offensive struggles. He erased multiple perimeter mistakes at the rim and generated extra possessions through sheer hustle. However, missed bunnies around the basket and poorly timed offensive fouls prevented his rating from matching his defensive dominance.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
19
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.6

An explosive offensive breakout served as the driving force behind a stellar two-way showing. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble while simultaneously providing excellent weak-side defensive help. This aggressive shot creation and disruptive length in the passing lanes made him a massive matchup problem.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 26.6m
17
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.6

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency was driven by elite shot selection and suffocating interior defense. He capitalized on every offensive touch while completely shutting down the paint on the other end. This combination of flawless execution and high-motor rim protection resulted in a dominant, game-altering impact.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Aggressive perimeter shooting successfully stretched the defense, though poor accuracy from deep limited his overall ceiling. He salvaged his impact through timely defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes. By maintaining a high motor despite a cold shooting night, he managed to keep his team marginally in the positive.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Efficient spot-up shooting was ultimately undermined by a complete inability to stay in front of his man on defense. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation, easily bypassing his closeouts for high-percentage looks. The resulting defensive bleeding slightly outweighed his highly reliable offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Making the most of a brief cameo, he executed perfectly within the flow of the offense to provide a quick spark. His decisive cuts to the basket yielded immediate positive momentum without disrupting the team's spacing. He avoided any defensive mistakes during his short stint, maximizing his highly limited opportunity.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation was marred by a quick defensive breakdown that yielded an easy basket. He barely had time to establish a rhythm or impact the game's flow. The negative rating stems entirely from one bad sequence in extremely limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 26.6m
22
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+3.1

A heavy diet of contested perimeter jumpers and uncharacteristic inefficiency suppressed his usually dominant footprint. While he orchestrated the offense through double-teams, live-ball turnovers and defensive transition lapses gave points right back to the opposition. The sheer volume of off-target attempts allowed the defense to consistently dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 36.2%
Net Rtg -38.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Rui Hachimura 23.5m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

A high volume of empty offensive possessions and defensive lapses cratered his overall rating despite some perimeter success. He struggled to contain his matchup in isolation, consistently bleeding points on the other end. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his missed jumpers heavily disrupted the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -56.0
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 23.2m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Breaking out of a recent offensive slump, an aggressive scoring mentality drove his highly positive impact. He compounded this offensive surge with excellent defensive rotations and high-motor loose ball recoveries. This two-way activity made him a constant matchup problem during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -47.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 20.9m
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless loose-ball recoveries were completely overshadowed by severe offensive stagnation. His inability to find a scoring rhythm stalled half-court sets, allowing defenders to aggressively cheat off him into the passing lanes. The resulting spacing issues and forced decisions ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -49.0
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 19.9m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Continuing a trend of highly efficient interior finishing, his flawless shot selection kept the baseline impact afloat. However, his overall rating was dragged down to neutral by slow transition defense and a lack of physical rim protection. Opponents consistently capitalized on his drop coverage, entirely negating the value of his offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
18
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Absolute dominance on the glass and suffocating switch defense defined a highly impactful two-way performance. He consistently capitalized on second-chance opportunities, punishing the defense for failing to put a body on him. This rare offensive outburst, combined with his elite defensive versatility, completely disrupted the opponent's frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +18.0
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Bouncing back from a scoreless stretch, he found his shooting stroke but gave back that production through poor defensive awareness. Missed rotations and costly fouls on the perimeter allowed opponents to ruthlessly target him in pick-and-roll actions. The resulting defensive breakdowns completely offset his improved offensive confidence.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

Disastrous shot selection and forced isolation plays absolutely tanked his overall value on the floor. He repeatedly derailed the offensive flow by settling for early-clock, contested jumpers instead of making the extra pass. The resulting long rebounds consistently fueled opponent fast breaks, compounding the damage of his poor decision-making.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Bronny James 18.2m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Playing with newfound offensive confidence, he attacked closeouts effectively to generate positive momentum. His overall impact was buoyed by disciplined on-ball defense and timely hustle plays that kept possessions alive. Staying within the flow of the offense rather than forcing action proved to be the catalyst for his highly effective stint.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 16.8m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A sharp drop in offensive involvement limited his ability to influence the game as a lob threat. While he provided adequate weak-side rim protection, his struggles to establish deep post position led to empty offensive trips. The lack of vertical spacing he usually provides made the half-court offense noticeably sluggish during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 14.4m
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Solid positional defense and active closeouts were ultimately negated by a complete lack of offensive gravity. Defenders entirely ignored him on the perimeter, severely clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. Despite his high-effort contests at the rim, his offensive invisibility made him a net negative in half-court situations.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0