Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 10/23 -3.6
Duren Open 8/12 -0.3
Robinson Hard 5/10 +2.9
Jenkins Open 6/10 +0.5
Lanier Hard 3/7 +1.7
Stewart Open 4/7 -0.8
Green 3/5 +1.1
Thompson Open 3/5 +0.2
Reed Open 2/2 +1.2
Holland II 1/2 -0.5

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Alexander-Walker 9/20 -2.8
Johnson 8/18 +0.2
Okongwu 8/13 +4.9
Gueye 5/10 -1.0
Daniels 6/9 +3.2
Krejčí Hard 3/9 -0.5
Wallace Hard 2/4 +2.4
Kennard Hard 1/2 +1.0
Houstan 0/2 -2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
ATL
45/83 Field Goals 42/87
54.2% Field Goal % 48.3%
10/31 3-Pointers 15/44
32.3% 3-Point % 34.1%
20/24 Free Throws 13/15
83.3% Free Throw % 86.7%
64.1% True Shooting % 59.8%
49 Total Rebounds 41
7 Offensive 11
32 Defensive 24
28 Assists 31
1.87 Assist/TO Ratio 1.63
12 Turnovers 17
12 Steals 9
4 Blocks 5
16 Fouls 24
66 Points in Paint 50
17 Fast Break Pts 6
30 Points off TOs 15
13 Second Chance Pts 14
30 Bench Points 21
19 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Duren
24 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 28.9 MIN
+24.22
2
Jalen Johnson
25 PTS · 8 REB · 9 AST · 39.1 MIN
+22.11
3
Dyson Daniels
12 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 37.6 MIN
+20.4
4
Cade Cunningham
25 PTS · 6 REB · 10 AST · 33.8 MIN
+16.82
5
Daniss Jenkins
14 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 29.7 MIN
+15.89
6
Mouhamed Gueye
11 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 21.4 MIN
+13.97
7
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
24 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 36.7 MIN
+13.06
8
Isaiah Stewart
13 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 26.2 MIN
+11.38
9
Duncan Robinson
14 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 30.7 MIN
+10.64
10
Javonte Green
9 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 28.6 MIN
+9.35
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 J. Duren STEAL (2 STL) 120–112
Q4 0:06 J. Johnson bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 120–112
Q4 0:12 J. Duren Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 120–112
Q4 0:12 J. Duren Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 119–112
Q4 0:12 M. Gueye take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Duren 2 FT) 118–112
Q4 0:12 J. Duren REBOUND (Off:4 Def:4) 118–112
Q4 0:14 MISS J. Johnson 25' 3PT 118–112
Q4 0:22 J. Duren Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 118–112
Q4 0:22 J. Duren Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 117–112
Q4 0:22 M. Gueye take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Duren 2 FT) 116–112
Q4 0:24 V. Krejčí 29' 3PT turnaround fadeaway (9 PTS) (J. Johnson 9 AST) 116–112
Q4 0:26 J. Duren Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 116–109
Q4 0:26 J. Duren Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 115–109
Q4 0:26 O. Okongwu take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Duren 2 FT) 114–109
Q4 0:28 V. Krejčí 26' 3PT (6 PTS) (J. Johnson 8 AST) 114–109

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 Jalen Johnson 39.1m
25
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+15.0

Drove the offense through sheer volume, though his shot selection occasionally bailed out the defense. His tremendous versatility as a help-defender and transition playmaker kept his overall value solidly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +18.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 37.6m
12
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.4

Wreaked havoc at the point of attack, generating immense value through deflections and ball pressure. His disciplined shot selection and ability to connect the offense seamlessly translated into a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +8.5
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Tanked his own value by forcing contested looks from beyond the arc, short-circuiting multiple offensive sets. The high scoring volume was entirely offset by defensive lapses and a stubborn refusal to stop shooting through his slump.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Vít Krejčí 36.1m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.1

Suffered a disastrous stint where his perimeter bricklaying actively killed offensive possessions. The massive negative rating stems from being repeatedly targeted and blown by in isolation defense on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.6m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Surprised the defense by stepping out and knocking down perimeter looks at a high clip. Despite the offensive surge and active screen-setting, his impact was neutralized by poor pick-and-roll containment that bled points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
11
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Created massive second-chance opportunities by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass. Even with a shaky perimeter stroke, his sheer physical exertion in the paint drove a highly productive rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +14.0
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 17.1m
3
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.2

Passed up open looks and failed to exert any gravitational pull on the opposing defense. His passive approach offensively combined with a lack of physicality on the boards resulted in a deeply negative shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Provided a brief flash of spacing by capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners. Ultimately played to a standstill, as his solid offensive execution was perfectly counterbalanced by quiet defensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.1

Looked completely out of sync during a brief cameo, forcing bad shots and missing defensive assignments. The quick hook from the coaching staff was justified by his immediate negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Barely broke a sweat during garbage time minutes. Registered a slight negative impact simply by being on the floor during an opponent's late scoring sequence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -63.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.2
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 33.8m
25
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+7.0

Heavy offensive usage yielded mixed efficiency due to a brutal night hunting shots from the perimeter. However, his elite playmaking gravity and steady defensive rotations salvaged a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 30.7m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Despite solid perimeter spacing, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive liabilities in isolation matchups. The scoring punch from deep couldn't fully mask the transition points given up on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Daniss Jenkins 29.7m
14
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.6

Generated positive momentum by aggressively attacking closeouts and facilitating drive-and-kick sequences. While his outside shot wasn't falling, his point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 28.9m
24
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.2

Completely controlled the paint through sheer physical dominance and relentless activity on the glass. His streak of highly efficient finishing continues to anchor the offense, generating massive value through second-chance opportunities and rim-deterrence.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Isaiah Stewart 26.2m
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage that stifled opponent drives. His efficient rim-running and positional rebounding provided a steady, positive baseline whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +6.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Brought high-energy rotations and active hands that popped in the hustle metrics. Unfortunately, his inability to stretch the floor or create advantages in the half-court offense ultimately resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to leave a footprint on the game despite decent defensive metrics. A lack of offensive assertiveness allowed defenders to sag off him, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates and dragging down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Faded into the background during his shifts, offering minimal resistance at the point of attack. His reluctance to challenge defenders or force the issue offensively resulted in empty minutes that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Chaz Lanier 11.0m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Operated purely as a floor-spacer, launching from deep whenever daylight presented itself. While the perimeter volume provided a brief offensive jolt, his lack of engagement on the defensive end kept his overall contribution marginal.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 8.8m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Provided a massive spark in limited minutes by crashing the glass and executing flawless weak-side rotations. Maximized his brief stint on the floor by converting every look around the basket and disrupting passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0