Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead DEN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DEN 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 184 attempts

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Jokić 13/26 -0.6
Murray 8/16 +1.6
Johnson Hard 6/14 +1.6
Hardaway Jr. Hard 5/11 +2.6
Watson 4/11 -3.9
Brown 4/4 +5.3
Valančiūnas Open 4/4 +2.4
Jones Open 2/2 +1.8
Nnaji Open 1/1 +0.6

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 9/20 -3.0
Alexander-Walker 10/17 +5.0
Daniels Open 7/14 -2.3
Porziņģis Hard 9/13 +10.0
Krejčí Hard 5/8 +6.3
Okongwu Hard 4/8 +2.4
Risacher 4/7 0.0
Gueye Hard 1/4 -1.5
Wallace Hard 0/2 -2.2
Kennard 0/2 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DEN
ATL
47/89 Field Goals 49/95
52.8% Field Goal % 51.6%
16/37 3-Pointers 20/46
43.2% 3-Point % 43.5%
24/30 Free Throws 15/16
80.0% Free Throw % 93.8%
65.6% True Shooting % 65.2%
51 Total Rebounds 45
9 Offensive 11
33 Defensive 34
28 Assists 35
2.33 Assist/TO Ratio 2.50
12 Turnovers 12
9 Steals 8
6 Blocks 2
15 Fouls 25
54 Points in Paint 44
26 Fast Break Pts 18
22 Points off TOs 10
16 Second Chance Pts 15
40 Bench Points 45
11 Largest Lead 23
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Nikola Jokić
40 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 35.6 MIN
+35.32
2
Jalen Johnson
21 PTS · 18 REB · 16 AST · 37.6 MIN
+25.86
3
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
30 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 33.8 MIN
+23.88
4
Jamal Murray
23 PTS · 5 REB · 12 AST · 38.2 MIN
+21.96
5
Kristaps Porziņģis
25 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 20.5 MIN
+20.84
6
Bruce Brown
13 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 32.3 MIN
+14.55
7
Onyeka Okongwu
13 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 27.5 MIN
+13.92
8
Vít Krejčí
15 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 27.9 MIN
+12.08
9
Dyson Daniels
15 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 33.6 MIN
+11.91
10
Spencer Jones
6 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 23.5 MIN
+11.14
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 134–133
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Murray driving Layup 134–133
Q4 0:02 N. Alexander-Walker driving Layup (30 PTS) 134–133
Q4 0:04 N. Alexander-Walker REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 134–131
Q4 0:05 J. Murray BLOCK (1 BLK) 134–131
Q4 0:05 MISS N. Alexander-Walker 28' 3PT - blocked 134–131
Q4 0:15 N. Jokić Free Throw 2 of 2 (40 PTS) 134–131
Q4 0:15 TEAM offensive REBOUND 133–131
Q4 0:15 MISS N. Jokić Free Throw 1 of 2 133–131
Q4 0:15 D. Daniels take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Jokić 2 FT) 133–131
Q4 0:16 N. Alexander-Walker Free Throw 2 of 2 (28 PTS) 133–131
Q4 0:16 N. Alexander-Walker Free Throw 1 of 2 (27 PTS) 133–130
Q4 0:16 S. Jones shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Alexander-Walker 2 FT) 133–129
Q4 0:17 N. Jokić Free Throw 2 of 2 (39 PTS) 133–129
Q4 0:17 N. Jokić Free Throw 1 of 2 (38 PTS) 132–129

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 37.6m
21
pts
18
reb
16
ast
Impact
+18.3

Elite defensive rebounding instantly ignited the transition attack and fueled a monstrous two-way effort. He operated as the central hub of the offense, reading the floor perfectly to dissect the defense with high-level passing. Despite some inefficiency from the perimeter, his sheer activity level and defensive versatility dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +15.1
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
30
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.4

Scorching perimeter execution punished defensive drop coverages and heavily boosted his net rating. He consistently hunted the right matchups, exploiting slower defenders with decisive off-the-dribble shooting. Strong hustle metrics further validated a highly engaged performance that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +24.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 33.6m
15
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.0

Defensive miscommunications and struggles navigating screens severely damaged his overall impact. Although he facilitated the offense well and found success attacking the mid-range, he gave up too much ground to opposing guards on the perimeter. The negative score reflects a night where his point-of-attack defense failed to match his offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 27.5m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Excellent rim protection and timely weak-side rotations anchored a highly effective defensive stint. He stretched the floor surprisingly well, forcing the opposing bigs out of the paint and opening up driving lanes. This combination of interior deterrence and perimeter spacing resulted in a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely tanked his overall rating. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. While his interior finishing showed improvement, the inability to stay in front of his man negated any offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Lethal spot-up shooting from the wings wasn't quite enough to push his impact into the green. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently requiring help defense that compromised the team's rotations. The slight negative rating indicates that his defensive vulnerabilities marginally outweighed his elite floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.1

Hitting deep transition threes and scoring efficiently over smaller switches completely broke the opposing defensive scheme. His massive positive score was driven by an unstoppable pick-and-pop game that the defense never adjusted to. He maximized a short shift by combining elite shot-making with solid rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Luke Kennard 17.5m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.1

A total lack of offensive aggression rendered him a massive liability during his time on the floor. Defenders completely ignored him off the ball, which clogged the spacing for the primary creators and stalled out half-court sets. The steep negative impact underscores how detrimental a passive shooter can be to the overall offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.0

Forcing low-quality shots from the perimeter rather than playing to his physical strengths inside ruined his efficiency. His poor shot selection led to long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opponent. Failing to anchor the defense or provide meaningful hustle plays resulted in a deeply negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.7

Empty offensive possessions and a failure to threaten the rim allowed the defense to aggressively trap the ball-handlers. While he moved the ball adequately, his inability to bend the defense created stagnant possessions. The negative rating stems from being an offensive non-factor who couldn't punish defensive sagging.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 38.2m
23
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
+15.7

Elite playmaking and high-level hustle metrics drove a strong positive rating. He constantly collapsed the defense to create wide-open looks for shooters, perfectly balancing his own perimeter scoring with unselfish distribution. Active hands on the defensive end also disrupted the opponent's pick-and-roll timing.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 22.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Nikola Jokić 35.6m
40
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+40.4

Dictating the terms of engagement in the paint generated a massive positive impact for the offensive hub. The sheer volume of his interior scoring overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt, easily offsetting a surprisingly cold night from beyond the arc. Elite defensive positioning and rim deterrence further cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 37.6%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +29.7
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +10.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 68.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 34.7m
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Defensive lapses and missed rotations in transition heavily penalized his overall score. Even though he found a rhythm spacing the floor from the corners, giving up easy penetration on the other end erased those gains. The resulting negative impact highlights a performance where perimeter shooting couldn't mask defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Peyton Watson 28.2m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Poor shot selection from the perimeter dragged his net impact deeply into the red. While he provided solid defensive resistance and active hands in the passing lanes, the wasted possessions on offense negated that value. His inability to finish through contact ultimately disrupted the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Spencer Jones 23.5m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Maximizing his limited touches with flawless execution around the rim kept his overall impact in the green. Active off-ball movement and solid hustle metrics opened up cutting lanes against the secondary unit. This highly efficient showing marked a massive improvement over his recent slump and provided a steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 32.3m
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Flawless execution on his limited offensive attempts wasn't quite enough to overcome the lack of ball movement when he initiated the offense. Stellar defensive metrics reflect excellent point-of-attack pressure, but the offense bogged down during his stretches as a primary ball-handler. Continuing a highly efficient streak, his overall rating suffered strictly from playmaking voids.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.8%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +6.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

A complete lack of secondary playmaking limited his overall effectiveness despite a hot shooting streak. Tunnel vision on offense led to stalled possessions, preventing the unit from capitalizing on his perimeter gravity. While he broke out of a recent scoring slump, his one-dimensional approach ultimately yielded a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Bullying smaller defenders in the post for high-percentage looks allowed him to dominate his brief minutes. Flawless finishing around the basket provided an immediate stabilizing presence for the bench unit. Even with a drop in overall volume, his physical screening and efficient interior touches drove a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +64.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 8.1m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

Failing to leave a meaningful footprint during a brief rotation stint kept his impact slightly negative. He executed his only offensive look but struggled to anchor the paint defensively against physical backups. The score reflects a passive stretch where he neither hurt nor significantly helped the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0