Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NOP lead DAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DAL 2P — 3P —
NOP 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 201 attempts

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Davis 16/28 +3.2
Thompson Hard 7/17 +1.1
Nembhard 2/13 -10.2
Flagg 5/11 -0.9
Marshall Open 7/10 +3.0
Williams 2/8 -4.3
Washington 3/7 +0.2
Hardy Hard 1/5 -3.7
Gafford Open 1/3 -1.7
Martin 2/2 +2.0

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Bey 7/17 -6.1
Williamson Open 10/14 +1.4
Fears Open 4/14 -7.8
Queen 7/12 +0.4
Poole Hard 4/12 -2.7
Murphy III 4/12 -3.3
Jones 4/7 +0.6
Alvarado Hard 2/4 +1.9
Matković 2/4 +0.3
Peavy Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DAL
NOP
46/104 Field Goals 44/97
44.2% Field Goal % 45.4%
10/33 3-Pointers 8/34
30.3% 3-Point % 23.5%
11/21 Free Throws 23/27
52.4% Free Throw % 85.2%
49.9% True Shooting % 54.6%
71 Total Rebounds 55
18 Offensive 14
39 Defensive 37
29 Assists 28
1.71 Assist/TO Ratio 2.15
16 Turnovers 12
9 Steals 9
5 Blocks 2
19 Fouls 16
66 Points in Paint 72
28 Fast Break Pts 11
14 Points off TOs 20
19 Second Chance Pts 23
35 Bench Points 49
11 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Anthony Davis
35 PTS · 17 REB · 2 AST · 35.3 MIN
+28.7
2
Zion Williamson
24 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 25.1 MIN
+25.47
3
Derik Queen
19 PTS · 10 REB · 6 AST · 34.2 MIN
+18.26
4
Naji Marshall
15 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 29.1 MIN
+14.57
5
Trey Murphy III
11 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 38.0 MIN
+14.46
6
Klay Thompson
20 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 31.1 MIN
+12.09
7
Saddiq Bey
19 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 35.2 MIN
+11.7
8
Cooper Flagg
16 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 35.0 MIN
+10.82
9
Herbert Jones
9 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 21.7 MIN
+9.72
10
Jeremiah Fears
12 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 24.1 MIN
+8.88
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:07 J. Alvarado STEAL (1 STL) 113–119
Q4 0:07 C. Flagg bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 113–119
Q4 0:10 T. Murphy III Free Throw 2 of 2 (11 PTS) 113–119
Q4 0:10 T. Murphy III Free Throw 1 of 2 (10 PTS) 113–118
Q4 0:10 N. Marshall personal FOUL (2 PF) (Murphy III 2 FT) 113–117
Q4 0:18 N. Marshall running Layup (15 PTS) (A. Davis 2 AST) 113–117
Q4 0:21 A. Davis REBOUND (Off:6 Def:11) 111–117
Q4 0:22 MISS S. Bey Layup 111–117
Q4 0:33 N. Marshall running Layup (13 PTS) 111–117
Q4 0:37 C. Martin REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 109–117
Q4 0:41 MISS T. Murphy III 26' 3PT 109–117
Q4 0:51 C. Flagg Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 109–117
Q4 0:51 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–117
Q4 0:51 MISS C. Flagg Free Throw 1 of 2 108–117
Q4 0:51 J. Poole shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Flagg 2 FT) 108–117

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

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 38.0m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.4

Phenomenal weak-side defensive rotations were entirely undone by clunky offensive execution. His inability to connect on spot-up opportunities and likely live-ball mistakes dragged a stellar defensive profile into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +9.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 35.2m
19
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

A brutal goose egg from beyond the arc severely punished his overall efficiency. While he found ways to score inside the arc, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions crippled his net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 34.2m
19
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.8

An unexpected scoring surge combined with relentless interior hustle resulted in a highly productive shift. He dominated his individual matchups on both ends, pairing efficient finishing with highly disruptive defensive activity.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +11.7
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 32
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 24.1m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.6

Tenacious on-ball defense and active hands kept him in the green despite a miserable shooting night. He compensated for a broken jumper by generating extra possessions and disrupting the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Herbert Jones 21.7m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-IQ defensive rotations and timely hustle plays provided a steady foundational impact. He didn't demand the ball, instead letting the game come to him and capitalizing on high-percentage transition looks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Poole 27.2m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Erratic shot selection from the perimeter continues to be the anchor weighing down his overall value. Even with an uptick in scoring volume and decent hustle metrics, the wasted offensive possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
24
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.8

Unstoppable downhill momentum and elite finishing at the rim generated a massive positive impact. He bullied defenders in the paint at will, requiring zero perimeter volume to completely dictate the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Provided a reliable spark plug effect by knocking down timely perimeter looks and applying signature backcourt pressure. His focused, mistake-free minutes offered exactly the kind of stabilizing presence needed from the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

Struggled to make a meaningful imprint during his rotation minutes, likely bleeding value through defensive miscommunications or minor errors. A lack of assertiveness on the block allowed opponents to dictate the tempo while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.7

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a slightly negative rating. He failed to integrate into the offensive flow during his limited run, essentially acting as a placeholder on the wing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Anthony Davis 35.3m
35
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
+32.0

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive rating. He overwhelmed frontcourt matchups with relentless interior finishing and elite rim protection, serving as the undisputed engine for the team.

Shooting
FG 16/28 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +26.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +20.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Cooper Flagg 35.0m
16
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.6

A sharp drop in scoring volume from his usual dominant stretch severely capped his overall value. While he remained engaged on the defensive end, hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers and fouls dragged his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 29.1m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.8

Highly efficient shot selection fueled a strong offensive rating, punishing defensive rotations with timely cuts. However, a complete lack of measurable defensive impact prevented his overall score from matching his scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 28.4m
8
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Passive offensive involvement neutralized a genuinely strong defensive showing. He anchored his matchups well and generated positive hustle events, but simply didn't take enough shots to keep his overall impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ryan Nembhard 24.6m
4
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-21.0

Disastrous perimeter shooting completely cratered his overall value. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock negated any marginal defensive contributions he made on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 15.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring -4.2
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -11.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
20
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

A heavy diet of perimeter attempts yielded a scoring surge, but the sheer volume of missed jumpers dragged down his efficiency metrics. The offensive aggression was necessary, yet it ultimately resulted in empty possessions that hurt the net score.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Martin 16.8m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Extreme offensive passivity resulted in a completely neutral rating. He didn't force any bad looks and maintained solid defensive positioning, but simply blended into the background during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Smothering point-of-attack defense salvaged what was otherwise a brutal offensive outing. A severe regression in finishing at the rim was perfectly offset by his relentless ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Despite virtually disappearing from the offensive gameplan, his rim deterrence and activity level kept his impact positive. He maximized limited minutes by focusing strictly on contesting shots and securing loose balls.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 10.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.6

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc quickly derailed his offensive rhythm. Unable to find the range, his inability to generate rim pressure left his overall impact in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0