Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BKN lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
BKN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 161 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram Hard 7/18 0.0
Quickley Hard 5/16 -2.7
Barnes Hard 3/10 -3.2
Murray-Boyles Open 4/8 -1.7
Shead Hard 1/7 -4.7
Agbaji 3/6 +0.6
Dick 1/6 -4.0
Walter Open 4/5 +3.0
Battle Open 2/5 -2.4
Mamukelashvili Hard 1/4 -1.2

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. Hard 9/18 +3.5
Clowney Hard 5/12 +2.1
Dëmin Hard 6/10 +6.6
Claxton Open 6/9 +1.8
Traore Hard 3/9 -1.8
Sharpe Open 3/4 +1.4
Wolf Hard 0/4 -3.6
Mann Hard 2/3 +2.4
Martin Hard 1/3 -1.0
Williams Hard 0/3 -3.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
BKN
32/86 Field Goals 35/75
37.2% Field Goal % 46.7%
10/36 3-Pointers 14/35
27.8% 3-Point % 40.0%
7/8 Free Throws 12/16
87.5% Free Throw % 75.0%
45.2% True Shooting % 58.5%
45 Total Rebounds 56
9 Offensive 6
30 Defensive 42
23 Assists 29
1.53 Assist/TO Ratio 1.32
15 Turnovers 21
6 Steals 7
5 Blocks 4
19 Fouls 17
40 Points in Paint 32
12 Fast Break Pts 15
17 Points off TOs 14
1 Second Chance Pts 5
30 Bench Points 20
5 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Michael Porter Jr.
24 PTS · 11 REB · 5 AST · 36.1 MIN
+17.55
2
Noah Clowney
19 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 33.4 MIN
+15.09
3
Ja'Kobe Walter
9 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 23.1 MIN
+11.98
4
Egor Dëmin
16 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 30.4 MIN
+11.55
5
Immanuel Quickley
17 PTS · 5 REB · 10 AST · 31.5 MIN
+11.55
6
Nic Claxton
12 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 27.6 MIN
+8.31
7
Collin Murray-Boyles
8 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 18.7 MIN
+7.58
8
Brandon Ingram
19 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 33.5 MIN
+6.63
9
Nolan Traore
8 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 22.3 MIN
+4.43
10
Gradey Dick
3 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 17.1 MIN
+4.16
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:07 BKN shot clock Team TURNOVER 81–96
Q4 0:28 D. Sharpe REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 81–96
Q4 0:29 MISS G. Dick tip Layup 81–96
Q4 0:29 G. Dick REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 81–96
Q4 0:32 MISS G. Dick driving Layup 81–96
Q4 0:41 N. Claxton take personal FOUL (2 PF) 81–96
Q4 0:45 N. Clowney 25' 3PT (19 PTS) (M. Porter Jr. 5 AST) 81–96
Q4 1:02 C. Murray-Boyles running DUNK (8 PTS) (J. Battle 1 AST) 81–93
Q4 1:03 J. Battle REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 79–93
Q4 1:05 MISS N. Traore 12' driving floating Shot 79–93
Q4 1:23 E. Dëmin REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 79–93
Q4 1:25 MISS C. Murray-Boyles 16' driving floating Shot 79–93
Q4 1:35 J. Battle REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 79–93
Q4 1:39 MISS N. Traore 25' 3PT 79–93
Q4 1:53 C. Murray-Boyles cutting Layup (6 PTS) (G. Temple 1 AST) 79–93

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

BKN Brooklyn Nets
24
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+23.6

High-volume perimeter shot-making stretched the defense and anchored a massive box score rating (+15.1). He paired the offensive barrage with engaged rebounding and solid defensive positioning to dominate his minutes.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -5.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Noah Clowney 33.4m
19
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.2

An absolute breakout performance defined by elite rim protection (+9.7) and aggressive hustle (+5.5). He shattered his recent scoring averages while providing a suffocating two-way presence that completely altered the game's complexion.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +44.8
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +8.5
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 30.4m
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Balanced two-way execution highlighted by sharp perimeter shooting and switchable defense (+6.0). He capitalized on open looks from deep while consistently blowing up opponent sets on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +42.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nic Claxton 27.6m
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Highly efficient interior finishing and vertical spacing drove a strong positive rating. He dominated his touches around the basket while providing the steady defensive anchor expected of him.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Terance Mann 25.7m
5
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.0

Excellent connective passing generated solid box score value, but hidden mistakes dragged his overall impact into the negative. The playmaking was ultimately overshadowed by defensive breakdowns or transition concessions not fully captured by his assist totals.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +53.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Nolan Traore 22.3m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Solid defensive rotations (+4.6) were undermined by a barrage of missed jumpers. His inability to convert from the perimeter continues a troubling trend of offensive inefficiency that limits his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

Capitalized on dump-offs and interior positioning to generate a highly efficient, albeit brief, offensive spark. His physical presence in the paint yielded a modest but clear positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 19.0m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.2

A complete offensive collapse resulted in a disastrous overall rating (-8.0). Missing all of his attempts from the field completely neutralized his minor defensive contributions and stalled the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

An incredible defensive (+8.2) and hustle (+7.5) masterclass completely masked a scoreless offensive outing. He abandoned his recent scoring punch to focus entirely on shutting down his matchup and securing loose balls.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Failed to generate any meaningful traction during his rotation minutes, dragging down the lineup with empty offensive possessions. Defensive apathy and poor shooting efficiency compounded to create a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -70.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 33.7m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Elite defensive metrics (+6.6) and high-energy hustle plays were entirely undone by a severe offensive regression. Missing seven shots and failing to connect from deep resulted in a massive drop-off from his recent scoring baseline.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 33.5m
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

Impact dragged into the red by 11 missed field goals that stalled offensive momentum. The scoring volume masked underlying inefficiency, though he managed to salvage some value through marginal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
17
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.6

Heavy playmaking volume and relentless hustle (+4.8) drove a highly positive rating despite significant shooting struggles. He missed 11 shots from the field, but his ability to orchestrate the offense and push the pace easily outweighed the inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ochai Agbaji 20.8m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A surprising offensive surge generated positive box score value, snapping him out of a prolonged shooting slump. However, defensive lapses kept his overall impact slightly negative despite the much-needed scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 6.6m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Early foul trouble or a rotational squeeze limited him to just a brief stint on the floor. He maintained his flawless interior finishing during those minutes, but the lack of court time neutralized any meaningful impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.4

Near-perfect shot selection fueled a stellar overall rating (+7.8) in a highly efficient secondary role. His ability to capitalize on limited touches was perfectly complemented by disciplined perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 20.5m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.7

Relentless energy yielded an elite hustle score (+7.8), but bricking six shots completely tanked his overall value. The offensive cratering erased all the goodwill generated by his physical, disruptive play on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Active hustle (+3.0) on the margins couldn't compensate for a sharp decline in offensive execution. He struggled to find his spots against the defense, resulting in a steep drop-off from his recent high-scoring stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -56.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Consistent interior finishing allowed him to maintain his streak of highly efficient shooting performances. Strong positional rebounding and steady defensive rotations further cemented a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 17.1m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Continued perimeter shooting woes were partially offset by surprisingly stout defensive metrics (+4.1). He continues to struggle finding the bottom of the net, forcing him to rely entirely on off-ball rotations to stay afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Marginal production in limited minutes resulted in a nearly neutral overall rating. He failed to establish a rhythm or match his recent scoring output, largely blending into the background during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Barely saw the floor during a brief cameo appearance. Generated virtually zero measurable impact on either end of the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0