Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAS lead ATL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ATL 2P — 3P —
SAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Alexander-Walker 13/17 +14.2
Johnson 10/15 +5.7
Okongwu 6/11 +2.5
Porziņģis 7/10 +5.8
Risacher 1/10 -10.2
Daniels Open 4/8 -2.1
Kennard 4/7 +2.3
Wallace Hard 2/5 +0.9
Krejčí 2/3 +1.6
Gueye Open 0/1 -1.4

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Fox 9/16 +2.7
Champagnie 7/13 +3.8
Barnes 5/13 -2.5
Johnson 9/12 +7.0
Vassell 6/11 +3.0
Sochan Hard 3/10 -4.0
Jones Garcia Open 5/7 +2.2
Olynyk 2/4 +0.3
Kornet Open 2/4 -1.6
Bryant Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ATL
SAS
49/87 Field Goals 48/91
56.3% Field Goal % 52.7%
20/37 3-Pointers 17/40
54.1% 3-Point % 42.5%
8/13 Free Throws 22/30
61.5% Free Throw % 73.3%
67.9% True Shooting % 64.8%
46 Total Rebounds 48
6 Offensive 10
33 Defensive 33
30 Assists 34
1.88 Assist/TO Ratio 3.09
16 Turnovers 10
7 Steals 10
6 Blocks 4
24 Fouls 15
46 Points in Paint 60
6 Fast Break Pts 19
10 Points off TOs 25
6 Second Chance Pts 10
36 Bench Points 53
8 Largest Lead 19
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
38 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 33.6 MIN
+35.9
2
De'Aaron Fox
26 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 31.2 MIN
+24.26
3
Keldon Johnson
25 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 32.1 MIN
+23.4
4
David Jones Garcia
12 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 18.6 MIN
+20.0
5
Jalen Johnson
26 PTS · 12 REB · 7 AST · 38.0 MIN
+19.34
6
Luke Kennard
10 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 16.5 MIN
+14.77
7
Devin Vassell
15 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 33.2 MIN
+14.61
8
Julian Champagnie
20 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 31.2 MIN
+14.5
9
Kristaps Porziņģis
16 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 29.1 MIN
+13.16
10
Onyeka Okongwu
15 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 25.1 MIN
+12.03
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:12 SAS shot clock Team TURNOVER 126–135
Q4 0:37 N. Alexander-Walker 26' 3PT pullup (38 PTS) 126–135
Q4 0:45 D. Fox Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 123–135
Q4 0:45 D. Fox Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 123–134
Q4 0:45 J. Johnson take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Fox 2 FT) 123–133
Q4 0:46 J. Johnson driving finger roll Layup (26 PTS) 123–133
Q4 0:56 K. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 121–133
Q4 0:56 TEAM offensive REBOUND 121–132
Q4 0:56 MISS K. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 121–132
Q4 0:56 N. Alexander-Walker personal FOUL (3 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 121–132
Q4 1:03 N. Alexander-Walker 25' 3PT step back (35 PTS) (D. Daniels 5 AST) 121–132
Q4 1:14 K. Johnson cutting Layup (24 PTS) (D. Vassell 3 AST) 118–132
Q4 1:22 J. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 118–130
Q4 1:22 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–130
Q4 1:22 MISS J. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 117–130

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

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Harrison Barnes 33.9m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Forced isolation attempts and stalled ball movement bogged down the offense whenever he tried to create off the dribble. Even with strong hustle metrics and active closeouts, his tendency to hold the ball allowed the defense to reset and load up the strong side. A stagnant offensive approach in the half-court ultimately outweighed his individual scoring jump.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Vassell 33.2m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

High-level perimeter defense and active hands disrupted multiple passing lanes, yet his overall impact hovered near zero. He settled for heavily contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and stunting the team's offensive rhythm. This erratic shot selection offset the undeniable value of his point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 31.2m
26
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+19.7

Relentless downhill pressure completely collapsed the opposing defense, creating a cascade of wide-open looks for perimeter shooters. He dictated the pace masterfully during transition sequences, using his elite burst to punish cross-matches before the defense could set. Active hands at the point of attack further amplified his stellar two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Hot perimeter shooting masked underlying defensive struggles that ultimately pushed his net impact into the red. He was consistently late navigating off-ball screens, surrendering crucial open looks during a pivotal third-quarter stretch. The scoring burst provided a necessary spark, but the defensive trade-offs were too costly.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 23.0m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Drop coverage limitations were ruthlessly exploited by opposing guards who comfortably stepped into uncontested pull-ups. While he provided his usual reliable screening angles, his inability to play at the level of the screen bled points on the other end. The resulting defensive strain negated his efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.5

Bully-ball drives to the rim generated consistent rim pressure and forced the defense into early rotation. He capitalized on a favorable matchup against smaller wings, repeatedly punishing them in the painted area to sustain the offense. While his defensive awareness occasionally lapsed off the ball, his sheer physical force kept his net impact positive.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +22.2
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.8

Offensive spacing issues severely handicapped his unit, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint. Despite showcasing excellent versatility by switching across three different positions defensively, his inability to punish closeouts created a mathematical disadvantage. The lack of a reliable jumper remains a glaring bottleneck for his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.4

Suffocating on-ball defense completely derailed the opponent's backup backcourt, sparking several transition opportunities. He played with a relentless motor, diving for loose balls and generating extra possessions that swung the momentum heavily in his team's favor. This high-energy, disruptive style was the driving force behind a massive positive swing in the game.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Kelly Olynyk 12.9m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

High-IQ connective passing out of the high post seamlessly unlocked backdoor cutters and kept the offense humming. He leveraged his veteran savvy to draw two crucial offensive fouls, shifting momentum during a tight second-quarter window. This blend of offensive flow and timely defensive positioning resulted in a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

A brief rotational cameo was highlighted by a pair of hard closeouts that forced rushed perimeter attempts. He stayed within himself offensively, simply moving the ball and maintaining spacing without forcing the issue. The disciplined approach yielded a modest but positive net impact during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -133.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 38.0m
26
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.4

Defensive versatility anchored his positive overall impact, allowing him to seamlessly switch across multiple assignments. Despite high-volume production, his net score was suppressed slightly by empty possessions and defensive breakdowns during transition sequences. He continues to establish himself as a reliable primary option with his aggressive downhill attacking.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
38
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+33.5

An absolute flamethrower performance from beyond the arc fundamentally broke the opponent's defensive shell. His elite shot-making during a massive second-half run forced panicked rotations, creating a massive positive swing in net impact. Beyond the perimeter barrage, he maintained disciplined closeouts on the other end to solidify a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 8/10 (80.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.3%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +34.7
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +9.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 30.7m
8
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.0

Elite point-of-attack harassment and high-level hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance marred by offensive passivity. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes for his teammates and tanked his overall impact score. His reluctance to let it fly from deep remains a glaring structural issue for the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Pick-and-pop spacing generated excellent gravity, though his overall net impact hovered near neutral due to struggles containing quicker bigs in space. He effectively punished drop coverage during a crucial second-quarter stretch to keep the offense afloat. Still, defensive rebounding lapses gave back much of the value he created on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-20.2

A disastrous perimeter shooting night completely cratered his offensive value and allowed defenders to aggressively sag off him. His inability to punish closeouts stalled half-court sets, heavily contributing to the steep negative net rating. The rookie hit a severe wall here, looking hesitant whenever forced to put the ball on the deck.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 10.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring -5.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

Bleeding points during his rotational minutes severely punished his net rating despite a clean offensive profile. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation sets on the wing, exposing a lack of lateral quickness against primary ball-handlers. The resulting defensive breakdowns completely negated his low-mistake passing and spacing value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.4

Interior finishing and reliable screen-setting provided a solid offensive baseline, yet his overall impact flatlined. He struggled noticeably to anchor the paint against spread pick-and-roll actions, frequently getting caught in no-man's land. This inability to neutralize vertical threats ultimately washed out his efficient offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +8.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luke Kennard 16.5m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Lethal floor-spacing gravity opened up the interior, driving a highly efficient offensive stint. He surprisingly added significant value through disciplined team defense, executing his rotations perfectly to blow up several weak-side actions. This combination of shooting threat and mistake-free positioning resulted in a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

A lack of physical presence at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to easily dictate the tempo during his minutes. While he knocked down a couple of timely perimeter looks, he failed to generate any meaningful downhill pressure to collapse the defense. His stint was defined by passive off-ball floating that dragged down the unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.1

Brief spot minutes were defined entirely by energetic rim-runs and active hands in the passing lanes. He barely had time to leave a footprint on the game, though his defensive positioning remained sound during a quick first-half cameo. The lack of offensive touches kept his overall impact firmly in neutral territory.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +71.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0