Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CLE lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
CLE 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 8/16 +7.0
Bridges Open 6/14 -4.4
Miller 8/13 +5.4
Mann Hard 5/13 +0.7
Knueppel Hard 6/11 +7.4
Diabaté Open 2/6 -3.9
James 2/5 -1.7
Green Hard 3/4 +4.8
Plumlee Open 2/4 -1.1
Salaün 1/4 -2.3

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell Hard 10/18 +7.3
Garland Hard 9/15 +7.9
Hunter 9/13 +8.7
Wade Hard 4/7 +4.4
Merrill 2/7 -3.8
Tyson 0/6 -6.5
Bryant 4/5 +4.3
Ball Hard 2/5 +0.6
Allen Open 4/4 +3.2
Tomlin 2/4 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
CLE
46/94 Field Goals 48/87
48.9% Field Goal % 55.2%
21/42 3-Pointers 24/44
50.0% 3-Point % 54.5%
19/25 Free Throws 19/19
76.0% Free Throw % 100.0%
62.9% True Shooting % 72.9%
58 Total Rebounds 35
17 Offensive 5
27 Defensive 25
29 Assists 36
1.45 Assist/TO Ratio 2.77
19 Turnovers 13
10 Steals 9
3 Blocks 2
18 Fouls 20
40 Points in Paint 42
22 Fast Break Pts 18
17 Points off TOs 31
20 Second Chance Pts 7
47 Bench Points 56
6 Largest Lead 19
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Darius Garland
27 PTS · 4 REB · 10 AST · 30.4 MIN
+26.08
2
De'Andre Hunter
27 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 25.7 MIN
+22.89
3
Donovan Mitchell
30 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 28.7 MIN
+18.34
4
Moussa Diabaté
5 PTS · 14 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+16.8
5
LaMelo Ball
23 PTS · 4 REB · 9 AST · 24.4 MIN
+15.47
6
Dean Wade
14 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 27.9 MIN
+14.48
7
Brandon Miller
20 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 26.7 MIN
+14.1
8
Miles Bridges
17 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 29.6 MIN
+13.14
9
Jarrett Allen
12 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 19.8 MIN
+12.66
10
Josh Green
10 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 19.5 MIN
+11.79
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 L. McNeeley Free Throw 2 of 2 (7 PTS) 132–139
Q4 0:10 L. McNeeley Free Throw 1 of 2 (6 PTS) 131–139
Q4 0:10 C. Porter Jr. shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (McNeeley 2 FT) 130–139
Q4 0:11 T. Salaün REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 130–139
Q4 0:16 MISS J. Tyson 7' driving floating bank Shot 130–139
Q4 0:40 L. McNeeley 28' 3PT (5 PTS) 130–139
Q4 0:42 L. McNeeley REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 127–139
Q4 0:45 MISS T. Mann 31' 3PT 127–139
Q4 1:00 C. Porter Jr. driving finger roll Layup (2 PTS) 127–139
Q4 1:18 T. Mann 33' 3PT pullup (13 PTS) 127–137
Q4 1:25 TEAM defensive REBOUND 124–137
Q4 1:25 MISS T. Proctor 25' step back 3PT 124–137
Q4 1:48 TEAM defensive REBOUND 124–137
Q4 1:49 MISS L. McNeeley 25' 3PT 124–137
Q4 1:58 T. Mann REBOUND (Off:4 Def:1) 124–137

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

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Darius Garland 30.4m
27
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+14.8

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and highly efficient scoring at all three levels drove a dominant impact score. He relentlessly manipulated drop coverages, generating high-quality looks for himself and his rollers.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +22.7
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
30
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.1

Explosive perimeter shot-making masked significant defensive apathy and off-ball ball-watching. The staggering difference between his +21.7 box metric and +1.7 total impact reveals how much value he bled on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +23.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +7.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dean Wade 27.9m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Punished late closeouts with a barrage of perimeter makes, breaking out of a recent shooting slump. However, his overall impact was capped due to getting beat on back cuts and giving up crucial transition lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylon Tyson 20.1m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.8

A complete offensive blackout from the field tanked his overall rating despite truly elite defensive metrics. His inability to convert open looks allowed the opposition to completely ignore him and trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring -4.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 19.8m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Total dominance in the paint and flawless shot selection fueled a massive positive net rating. His vertical spacing and elite rim deterrence completely dictated the geometry of the half-court.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Sam Merrill 25.9m
4
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.8

Missing all of his perimeter attempts severely damaged his value, as his entire role relies on bending the defense with gravity. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to space the floor clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+22.1

Lethal spot-up shooting and decisive straight-line drives powered a stellar net rating. He consistently punished defensive rotations, acting as the ultimate pressure-release valve for the offense.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +24.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Lonzo Ball 23.8m
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.6

Passive offensive decision-making and a reluctance to pressure the rim allowed the defense to comfortably switch all actions. While his hit-ahead passes generated some rhythm, his lack of scoring gravity resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Capitalized on dump-off passes and offensive glass opportunities to generate highly efficient offense. His impact was somewhat muted by slow pick-and-roll defensive coverages that allowed opposing guards to turn the corner.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Struggled to process defensive rotations at NBA speed, frequently getting caught out of position on weak-side actions. A couple of timely offensive conversions couldn't salvage a stint defined by defensive confusion.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Barely factored into the game during a brief cameo, though he did manage to convert his only look at the rim. Defensive miscommunications in transition kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -140.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

Rushed a perimeter attempt during his brief appearance, failing to establish any offensive rhythm. His stint was too short to generate meaningful positive value, resulting in a neutral-to-negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -120.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 30.8m
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Despite a hot perimeter shooting display, his overall impact cratered to -6.1 due to severe defensive lapses and negative non-box metrics. Opponents ruthlessly targeted him in space, completely negating the value of his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 29.6m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Forced perimeter shots and a lack of efficiency from deep dragged his overall impact into the red. While his defensive rotations and weak-side help generated a solid +5.0 defensive rating, the empty offensive possessions ultimately outweighed his effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 26.7m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Elite defensive execution and sustained shot-making efficiency drove a highly positive overall rating. His ability to consistently punish closeouts while maintaining disciplined on-ball pressure defined a superb two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 24.4m
23
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.2

High-volume perimeter shot-making inflated his box score, but sloppy ball security and transition defensive lapses nearly wiped out his positive contributions. The massive gap between his +15.0 box metric and +1.4 total impact highlights how much value he surrendered through live-ball mistakes.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +17.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +6.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mason Plumlee 10.0m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Bleeding value at an alarming rate during his brief stint, his presence on the floor coincided with massive opponent runs. A lack of rim deterrence and poor positioning in drop coverage resulted in a steep negative impact in just ten minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.0

Relentless activity on the glass and elite rim protection anchored the second unit. Even with a dip in his usual finishing efficiency, his sheer physical presence and second-chance generation dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +15.8
Defense +10.5
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

Offensive invisibility and poor spatial awareness cratered his value during his lengthy stint on the floor. Opponents aggressively sagged off him to clog the paint, completely stalling the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 20.7m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

An inability to generate meaningful advantages on offense combined with invisible off-ball defense resulted in a disastrous net rating. He consistently stalled offensive sets, allowing the defense to reset and dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 19.5m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Timely perimeter shooting provided a necessary offensive spark, though his overall impact was muted by quiet stretches off the ball. His defensive versatility kept him on the floor, effectively neutralizing his primary assignment on the wing.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 17.3m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Aggressive dribble penetration consistently collapsed the defense, driving a solid positive impact despite some inefficient finishing at the rim. He forced the issue in the mid-range, creating secondary scoring opportunities for teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence during his short rotation, executing perfectly on a spot-up opportunity. His veteran positioning ensured the floor remained properly spaced without surrendering anything defensively.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

A hyper-efficient scoring burst in garbage time rapidly inflated his net impact. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages during a brief late-game stint to maximize his per-minute value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0