Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead SAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAS 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama 10/15 +6.3
Vassell Hard 7/15 +2.0
Fox 4/11 -3.8
Castle 7/10 +4.7
Johnson Open 6/8 +2.9
Champagnie Hard 2/7 -1.6
Harper Open 3/6 -2.2
Waters III Hard 3/5 +2.8
Kornet Open 3/5 -1.0
Olynyk Hard 2/4 +0.3

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Alexander-Walker 7/18 -4.3
Daniels 5/14 -5.6
Johnson 6/11 +0.9
Risacher 4/11 -1.2
Okongwu Hard 3/11 -4.0
Newell Open 4/9 -2.6
Gueye 2/6 -3.2
Kennard Hard 4/5 +4.9
Krejčí Hard 1/5 -2.6
Wallace 2/4 -0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
ATL
51/94 Field Goals 38/94
54.3% Field Goal % 40.4%
13/36 3-Pointers 10/40
36.1% 3-Point % 25.0%
11/16 Free Throws 12/16
68.8% Free Throw % 75.0%
62.4% True Shooting % 48.5%
61 Total Rebounds 48
12 Offensive 10
44 Defensive 33
31 Assists 26
2.07 Assist/TO Ratio 1.53
14 Turnovers 16
11 Steals 7
4 Blocks 1
12 Fouls 14
60 Points in Paint 50
24 Fast Break Pts 13
15 Points off TOs 16
15 Second Chance Pts 15
68 Bench Points 29
38 Largest Lead 1
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Victor Wembanyama
26 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 21.5 MIN
+26.34
2
Devin Vassell
18 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 27.4 MIN
+18.49
3
Keldon Johnson
13 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 16.1 MIN
+14.51
4
Stephon Castle
17 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 23.9 MIN
+12.62
5
Luke Kornet
8 PTS · 9 REB · 0 AST · 17.6 MIN
+11.99
6
Zaccharie Risacher
11 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 30.4 MIN
+10.66
7
Julian Champagnie
6 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 18.3 MIN
+10.57
8
Lindy Waters III
8 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 16.9 MIN
+10.4
9
Harrison Barnes
7 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 21.8 MIN
+9.63
10
Luke Kennard
10 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 28.8 MIN
+9.33
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 K. Olynyk REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 126–98
Q4 0:12 MISS A. Newell Free Throw 1 of 1 126–98
Q4 0:12 J. Sochan shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Newell 1 FT) 126–98
Q4 0:12 A. Newell driving Layup (9 PTS) (K. Wallace 3 AST) 126–98
Q4 0:25 SAS shot clock Team TURNOVER 126–96
Q4 0:39 J. McLaughlin REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 126–96
Q4 0:42 MISS K. Olynyk running 3PT 126–96
Q4 0:46 J. McLaughlin REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 126–96
Q4 0:49 MISS K. Wallace running Layup 126–96
Q4 0:53 K. Wallace STEAL (1 STL) 126–96
Q4 0:53 J. McLaughlin bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 126–96
Q4 1:08 C. Bryant REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 126–96
Q4 1:11 MISS Z. Risacher driving Layup 126–96
Q4 1:17 K. Olynyk Hook (4 PTS) 126–96
Q4 1:34 M. Gueye tip DUNK (4 PTS) 124–96

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
23
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

Incredible hustle (+8.3) and relentless energy completely salvaged a highly inefficient perimeter shooting night. He constantly kept possessions alive with timely deflections and sheer effort on 50/50 balls. His willingness to attack late-clock situations bailed out the offense, keeping his overall impact positive despite the heavy volume of missed threes.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Johnson 31.1m
17
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.5

Opponents consistently targeting him in transition and off-ball defensive lapses drove a surprisingly poor net impact (-5.9). While his raw scoring efficiency was solid, his failure to secure critical defensive positioning allowed costly second-chance points. The momentum-swinging mistakes heavily outweighed his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +13.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Onyeka Okongwu 30.9m
7
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Forcing ill-advised perimeter shots cratered his offensive value and frequently sparked opponent fast breaks. He was an absolute force anchoring the paint defensively (+7.2 Def), but his insistence on playing outside his traditional rim-running role stalled the offense. These empty possessions dragged his overall impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Missing a slew of interior shots severely damaged his offensive efficiency and dragged his total impact into the negative. He provided excellent defensive resistance (+5.9) and knocked down spot-up looks, but an inability to finish through contact wasted multiple possessions. Poor shot selection when driving into traffic ultimately negated his perimeter success.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 25.9m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

A brutal shooting performance from beyond the arc completely tanked his offensive impact and allowed defenders to pack the paint. He generated decent looks but simply couldn't convert, which routinely stalled half-court sets. While his point-of-attack defense remained solid, the severe spacing issues he created were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 28.8m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Opponents relentlessly targeting him in isolation coverages drove a deeply negative impact despite his near-perfect shooting. He consistently struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, bleeding points at the point of attack. Ultimately, his low offensive volume simply couldn't outpace the defensive damage he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 19.6m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Frequent defensive breakdowns and poor rotational awareness cratered his overall impact despite a noticeable uptick in scoring. He consistently lost his man off the ball, surrendering easy backdoor cuts and open layups. The offensive production he generated was immediately given back through these undisciplined defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

Poor shot selection and a total inability to create separation resulted in a disastrous offensive stint. He frequently forced contested jumpers and failed to initiate any meaningful ball movement to salvage the possessions. Compounding his offensive struggles was a lack of defensive resistance, making him a massive liability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -48.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

High-level defensive activity (+3.9 Def) and excellent hustle metrics completely masked a dreadful perimeter shooting performance. He missed all his outside attempts but compensated by aggressively contesting shots and crashing the glass. This chaotic, disruptive energy broke the opponent's rhythm enough to yield a positive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Quick decision-making and aggressive point-of-attack defense (+2.6 Def) sparked a highly positive, energetic stint. He effectively pushed the pace in transition, consistently catching the defense backpedaling. Staying firmly attached to ball-handlers disrupted the opponent's offensive flow and maximized his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Devin Vassell 27.4m
18
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.9

Confident perimeter shot-making fueled a strong positive impact, as he hunted his looks from deep to exceed his recent scoring baseline. Stifling defensive rotations (+6.8 Def) further elevated his value. This two-way aggression set the tone for the wing rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +33.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 23.9m
17
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.4

Relentless downhill penetration allowed him to generate high-quality looks at the rim and collapse the defense. Active pursuit of loose balls (+2.2 Hustle) kept crucial possessions alive. Despite slightly muted defensive metrics, his aggressive offensive initiation dictated the tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +49.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 21.9m
8
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.7

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than pressuring the rim severely dragged down his offensive efficiency. This uncharacteristic inability to break down the defense led to stagnant half-court sets. While he remained engaged defensively, the lack of downhill aggression resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 21.8m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Extreme offensive passivity capped his overall ceiling, as he rarely looked to attack closeouts despite converting his rare attempts. Disciplined positional defense (+5.0 Def) kept his head above water. He functioned purely as a decoy rather than an active threat.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luke Kornet 17.6m
8
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Superb vertical spacing and rim-running drove a highly efficient stint that maximized his offensive opportunities. He deterred multiple drives in the paint through excellent drop-coverage positioning (+5.0 Def). Consistently finding the soft spots in the pick-and-roll anchored his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +9.5
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
26
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+32.0

Terrifying rim protection (+8.3 Def) completely warped the opponent's shot profile and deterred any interior attacks. On the other end, unstoppable finishing and elite shot selection fueled a massive positive swing. This was a masterclass in two-way dominance, punctuated by relentless activity on 50/50 balls.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +59.2
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +20.7
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +12.3
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Dylan Harper 18.4m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

Floating on the perimeter instead of forcing the issue against smaller matchups resulted in a noticeable offensive void. This lack of aggression broke a recent streak of high-volume efficiency and dragged his total impact into the red. Solid defensive rotations simply weren't enough to compensate for his passivity.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +51.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite defensive disruption (+8.7 Def) completely salvaged a night where his perimeter jumper abandoned him. He missed several wide-open catch-and-shoot looks but compensated by blowing up opponent dribble hand-offs. Staying glued to shooters off the ball ensured his minutes remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +48.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Capitalizing on broken plays by relocating for open perimeter looks drove a highly effective bench stint. He punished defensive lapses while maintaining excellent positional discipline on the other end (+5.5 Def). Active hands in the passing lanes helped him shatter his recent low-impact baseline.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.0

Relentless bully-ball drives to the basket generated incredibly efficient looks and punished the interior defense. He consistently exploited mismatches in transition to generate easy momentum-shifting buckets. This overwhelming offensive force easily masked his relatively quiet defensive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

An inability to organize the second-unit offense or generate point-of-attack pressure led to a negative overall rating. He consistently struggled to navigate screens, allowing easy penetration into the paint. The lack of playmaking thrust made his minutes feel empty despite converting his few shot attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

A complete lack of offensive involvement and zero hustle plays cratered his overall impact during a brief, lethargic stint. He was entirely invisible on the floor, failing to generate any rim pressure or defensive disruption. This passive performance abruptly snapped a recent string of highly efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Slow defensive rotations that yielded open looks at the rim ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. Opponents consistently exploited his lack of foot speed in pick-and-roll coverages. While he showed commendable hustle fighting for position (+2.3), the defensive bleeding was too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.5

Offensive invisibility dragged down his score, as his reluctance to shoot allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. While he provided some resistance on the perimeter (+2.7 Def), the spacing issues he created were detrimental. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately outweighed his defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1