Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Bridges Hard 9/22 -1.1
Ball Hard 6/19 -4.5
Knueppel Hard 9/16 +5.0
Sexton 5/12 -0.6
James Hard 0/4 -4.4
Diabaté Open 3/3 +1.8
Mann 2/3 +0.7
Kalkbrenner Open 2/3 -0.2
Peterson 0/3 -3.4
Connaughton 1/2 -0.3

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram 9/21 -1.2
Barnes 8/16 -1.7
Barrett 7/16 -3.7
Quickley Hard 6/11 +4.2
Poeltl Open 6/7 +3.3
Mamukelashvili 3/7 -1.2
Dick 3/5 +2.1
Murray-Boyles Open 1/3 -2.0
Shead 1/2 -0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
TOR
37/87 Field Goals 44/88
42.5% Field Goal % 50.0%
10/40 3-Pointers 10/25
25.0% 3-Point % 40.0%
24/30 Free Throws 12/16
80.0% Free Throw % 75.0%
53.9% True Shooting % 57.9%
57 Total Rebounds 48
14 Offensive 8
34 Defensive 35
19 Assists 25
1.19 Assist/TO Ratio 1.47
16 Turnovers 17
11 Steals 8
9 Blocks 7
14 Fouls 21
50 Points in Paint 58
14 Fast Break Pts 21
17 Points off TOs 7
15 Second Chance Pts 15
35 Bench Points 23
2 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kon Knueppel
24 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 35.8 MIN
+23.44
2
Brandon Ingram
27 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 37.5 MIN
+19.1
3
Scottie Barnes
16 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 33.3 MIN
+17.98
4
Miles Bridges
22 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 38.5 MIN
+16.31
5
Moussa Diabaté
8 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 19.6 MIN
+12.93
6
Immanuel Quickley
15 PTS · 10 REB · 4 AST · 31.1 MIN
+12.13
7
Jakob Poeltl
13 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 31.7 MIN
+11.18
8
LaMelo Ball
20 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 27.5 MIN
+10.68
9
Collin Sexton
17 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.7 MIN
+10.32
10
Gradey Dick
10 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 19.4 MIN
+9.11
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–110
Q4 0:00 S. Barnes BLOCK (2 BLK) 108–110
Q4 0:00 MISS C. Sexton putback Layup - blocked 108–110
Q4 0:02 C. Sexton REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 108–110
Q4 0:02 MISS M. Bridges 13' turnaround fadeaway Shot 108–110
Q4 0:07 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–110
Q4 0:09 B. Ingram BLOCK (3 BLK) 108–110
Q4 0:09 MISS R. Kalkbrenner DUNK - blocked 108–110
Q4 0:18 R. Barrett cutting finger roll Layup (16 PTS) (B. Ingram 3 AST) 108–110
Q4 0:33 B. Ingram REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 108–108
Q4 0:36 MISS L. Ball 6' driving floating Shot 108–108
Q4 0:58 S. Barnes DUNK (16 PTS) 108–108
Q4 1:02 S. Barnes REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 108–106
Q4 1:04 MISS B. Ingram 24' 3PT 108–106
Q4 1:10 J. Poeltl REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 108–106

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 37.5m
27
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.9

Overcame a high volume of missed mid-range jumpers through sheer defensive dominance (+11.5 Def) and timely perimeter shot-making. His length disrupted passing lanes all night, turning defensive stops into transition opportunities. The massive scoring bump (+54% vs avg) showcased his aggressive mindset, even when the efficiency wavered.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 5
S Scottie Barnes 33.3m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.9

Dictated the flow of the game with a masterful blend of efficient interior scoring and relentless activity (+5.5 Hustle). He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, creating high-percentage looks while elevating his scoring output significantly above recent trends. His physical presence simply overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 32.9m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Poor shot selection and forced drives into traffic severely undercut his offensive value. While he found some success getting to his spots, the resulting misses and lack of defensive resistance (+2.8 Def) allowed opponents to leak out in transition. The volume scoring was ultimately hollow due to the inefficiency and defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 31.7m
13
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Continued an elite stretch of finishing with near-perfect execution in the pick-and-roll. Despite the offensive efficiency, his overall impact was muted by a surprisingly quiet defensive showing (+3.0 Def) where he failed to alter shots at his usual rate. The flawless shooting masked some struggles in rim protection.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +8.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Bounced back from recent struggles with aggressive perimeter shooting and highly engaged point-of-attack defense (+7.7 Def). He navigated screens beautifully to pressure ball-handlers, while his off-the-dribble shooting forced defenders to play him tight. The combination of spacing and defensive tenacity drove a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Jamal Shead 20.2m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.0

Offensive passivity destroyed his value, as he completely vanished from the scoring column (-76% vs avg) and failed to pressure the rim. He provided excellent defensive pressure (+6.2 Def), but playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end stalled out the second unit. The lack of aggression made him a liability despite the defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Gradey Dick 19.4m
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump by hunting high-quality catch-and-shoot opportunities. His floor spacing (+10.6 Box) opened up driving lanes for teammates, providing a much-needed offensive jolt (+150% vs avg). Defensive limitations (-0.9 Def) capped his ceiling, but the elite shot-making was exactly what the rotation needed.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

A drastic drop-off from his recent hot streak, as he was completely neutralized by the opposing frontcourt. His inability to establish deep position led to a massive scoring plummet (-72% vs avg) and defensive breakdowns (-1.2 Def). The physical mismatch was apparent, rendering him ineffective on both ends.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Struggled to replicate his recent scoring punch, settling for contested looks rather than moving the ball. His defensive rotations were a step slow (+1.0 Def), allowing opponents to capitalize on late closeouts. The dip in efficiency and lack of secondary playmaking resulted in a net negative shift.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Barely registered in a fleeting appearance, failing to attempt a shot or make any tangible impact. The brief stint was marred by slight defensive miscommunications (-0.3 Def) before he was quickly pulled. A non-factor whose negative score reflects empty minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 38.5m
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.7

Inefficient shot selection dragged down his offensive ceiling, as he forced numerous contested looks. However, relentless energy on the glass and in loose-ball situations (+6.0 Hustle) salvaged his overall impact. His defensive versatility ultimately kept his head above water despite the cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Kon Knueppel 35.8m
24
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.1

Elite two-way impact fueled by a massive scoring surge that exceeded his recent averages by over 40%. His perimeter shooting stretched the defense, while highly disruptive defensive rotations (+7.9 Def) suffocated opponent actions. A rare blend of high-volume efficiency and lockdown defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Extreme passivity on offense cratered his overall value, attempting just three shots in nearly 30 minutes of action. While he held his own defensively (+5.0 Def) and secured the glass, the lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to ignore him. He simply didn't generate enough pressure to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +11.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 27.5m
20
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.8

Shot selection was highly erratic, as a barrage of forced perimeter looks tanked his offensive efficiency. His playmaking vision kept the offense humming in spurts, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed the creation. The negative impact stems directly from settling for tough jumpers rather than attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sion James 24.9m
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.8

A complete offensive zero whose inability to hit open shots (-6.4 Box) severely cramped the floor for his teammates. He managed to provide solid resistance on the other end (+6.5 Def), but it wasn't nearly enough to offset the dead weight on offense. Opponents actively sagged off him, blowing up the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring -3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Continued a strong run of form by applying constant downhill pressure, consistently collapsing the defense to create secondary opportunities. Solid rotational defense ensured his offensive contributions translated to a net positive. His aggressive slashing mentality set the tone for the unit.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Flawless execution around the rim extended his streak of highly efficient shooting performances. His impact was amplified by stifling interior defense (+6.9 Def) that deterred multiple drives. He played perfectly within his role, taking zero bad shots and anchoring the paint during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game, failing to generate any offensive gravity or connect from deep. While he made a few hustle plays (+2.1), his inability to space the floor or create advantages stalled out multiple possessions. The lack of tangible production made him a net negative in a short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Mann 12.3m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Maximized a short stint with hyper-efficient scoring and highly disruptive point-of-attack defense (+6.0 Def). He completely flipped the momentum during his brief appearance by blowing up pick-and-rolls and converting his limited offensive touches. A textbook example of a high-energy, high-leverage bench shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Provided a brief but steadying veteran presence, capitalizing on limited touches to exceed his recent scoring averages. He didn't force any action, instead keeping the ball moving and maintaining defensive integrity. A quiet, mistake-free shift that kept the team afloat while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0