Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead GSW lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
GSW 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Curry Hard 9/16 +6.4
Podziemski Hard 6/9 +8.2
Melton Hard 3/8 -1.0
Butler III Open 4/8 -1.3
Post Hard 3/7 +1.4
Horford Hard 3/7 +1.0
Moody 3/7 -1.0
Santos Hard 5/6 +6.5
Green 4/6 +2.9
Payton II 4/4 +4.3

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller Hard 14/29 +3.7
Sexton 6/16 -5.7
Ball Hard 9/13 +12.8
Knueppel Hard 7/11 +7.2
Hall Open 4/6 -0.2
Salaün Open 3/5 -0.2
Green 2/5 -0.7
James Open 3/4 +1.9
Diabaté 0/3 -3.1
McNeeley Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
GSW
CHA
46/83 Field Goals 48/93
55.4% Field Goal % 51.6%
24/49 3-Pointers 16/40
49.0% 3-Point % 40.0%
16/17 Free Throws 13/17
94.1% Free Throw % 76.5%
72.9% True Shooting % 62.2%
41 Total Rebounds 46
10 Offensive 11
27 Defensive 26
35 Assists 35
1.84 Assist/TO Ratio 2.33
19 Turnovers 15
7 Steals 11
3 Blocks 1
20 Fouls 23
32 Points in Paint 56
7 Fast Break Pts 19
17 Points off TOs 28
21 Second Chance Pts 10
61 Bench Points 29
15 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
LaMelo Ball
27 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 30.3 MIN
+24.96
2
Kon Knueppel
20 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 32.3 MIN
+19.07
3
Gui Santos
13 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 16.8 MIN
+17.45
4
Jimmy Butler III
19 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 30.9 MIN
+16.44
5
Brandin Podziemski
19 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 23.3 MIN
+16.17
6
Brandon Miller
33 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 36.3 MIN
+15.44
7
PJ Hall
9 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 15.7 MIN
+11.46
8
Stephen Curry
26 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 33.1 MIN
+10.81
9
Draymond Green
10 PTS · 8 REB · 12 AST · 28.2 MIN
+10.62
10
Moses Moody
7 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 18.9 MIN
+9.6
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:05 D. Green REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 132–125
Q4 0:08 MISS B. Miller 31' 3PT 132–125
Q4 0:17 J. Butler III Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 132–125
Q4 0:17 J. Butler III Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 131–125
Q4 0:17 K. Knueppel take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Butler III 2 FT) 130–125
Q4 0:24 L. Ball 26' 3PT (27 PTS) (S. James 3 AST) 130–125
Q4 0:27 S. Curry Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 130–122
Q4 0:27 S. Curry Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 129–122
Q4 0:27 M. Diabaté personal FOUL (4 PF) (Curry 2 FT) 128–122
Q4 0:44 J. Butler III REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 128–122
Q4 0:47 MISS L. Ball 30' pullup 3PT 128–122
Q4 0:53 D. Green tip Layup (10 PTS) 128–122
Q4 0:53 D. Green REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 126–122
Q4 0:55 MISS S. Curry 25' step back 3PT 126–122
Q4 1:11 L. Ball tip Layup (24 PTS) 126–122

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

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 36.4m
33
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.5

Massive scoring volume completely masked a highly inefficient shot profile, particularly a rough stretch of misses from deep. His willingness to force contested jumpers early in the clock wiped out the value of his scoring, resulting in a perfectly neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 14/29 (48.3%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.4%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +21.2
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 32.3m
20
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.8

Elite shot preparation and a quick release allowed him to torch drop coverages from the perimeter. While his defensive footprint was minimal, his ability to consistently stretch the floor was the primary engine behind a strong +4.2 overall grade.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 30.3m
27
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+20.5

Dictated the pace of the game brilliantly, combining lethal pull-up shooting with exceptional defensive anticipation. His ability to jump passing lanes and immediately punish the defense from deep defined a dominant +11.0 performance.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +24.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Moussa Diabaté 27.9m
0
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Anchored the paint with a dominant defensive rating, routinely disrupting actions at the rim. Unfortunately, his complete lack of offensive utility and multiple fumbled catches in the paint cratered his overall impact to a team-worst -7.1.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +9.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Collin Sexton 27.4m
16
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.2

A brutal volume of missed perimeter shots heavily penalized his offensive rating, breaking a streak of highly efficient outings. He tried to compensate with aggressive point-of-attack defense, but the sheer number of wasted possessions kept his net impact firmly negative.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
Sion James 25.8m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite rarely forcing a bad shot, his impact slipped into the red due to sloppy perimeter fouls and poor ball security. He struggled to navigate aggressive traps, giving away crucial possessions that negated his efficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Showed flashes of solid weak-side rim protection, but his offensive processing speed remains a step slow. Hesitation on open catches allowed the defense to reset, stalling out half-court sets and dragging his net score down.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 16.7m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Energized the second unit with relentless transition running and loose-ball recoveries. Though he occasionally lost his man on backdoor cuts, his high-motor play easily justified his positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 15.7m
9
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Dominated the interior during a highly productive stint, setting bone-crushing screens that freed up the guards. His excellent positioning on both ends of the floor and soft touch around the rim fueled a massive +9.0 impact in under 16 minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Faded into the background during his minutes, failing to assert himself offensively or create space off the ball. A couple of blown defensive assignments in transition compounded his lack of production, leading to a steep -4.0 rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 33.1m
26
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

A blistering perimeter shooting display was largely neutralized by defensive vulnerabilities and costly giveaways in traffic. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, which eroded the massive offensive advantage he generated.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
19
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.4

Despite a highly efficient scoring profile, his overall impact was dragged down to a near-neutral +0.9 by costly live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. He consistently generated quality looks in the half-court, but giving away possessions negated much of his playmaking value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Draymond Green 28.2m
10
pts
8
reb
12
ast
Impact
-4.6

Elite defensive anchoring and transition playmaking were heavily offset by a string of sloppy offensive fouls and unforced passing errors. His ability to quarterback the defense kept his floor positive, though poor ball security prevented a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moses Moody 18.9m
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Scoring volume plummeted compared to his recent tear, yet he still posted a stellar +5.2 overall impact through relentless off-ball activity. Exceptional hustle metrics and lockdown perimeter defense proved he can heavily influence winning even when his shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Quinten Post 14.3m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Operating strictly as a pick-and-pop threat, his perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for the guards. A strong defensive rating buoyed his overall impact, showcasing excellent positional awareness when rotating to protect the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Masterful shot selection and decisive off-ball cutting drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He capitalized on defensive rotations perfectly, avoiding forced looks while adding timely hustle plays to secure a massive +7.4 net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Offensive stagnation and poor decision-making in the half-court severely tanked his overall rating. While his point-of-attack defense remained solid, a string of empty possessions and forced jumpers derailed the team's momentum whenever he initiated the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Will Richard 17.0m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.0

Careless ball-handling and poorly timed fouls completely overshadowed a highly efficient shooting night. He consistently gave away free points at the charity stripe, causing his overall impact to plummet despite rarely missing from the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Gui Santos 16.8m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.8

Punished defensive closeouts with ruthless efficiency, driving a spectacular +9.5 net impact in limited action. His decisive catch-and-shoot execution broke the opponent's zone coverage and provided a massive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Al Horford 13.1m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Settled too frequently for contested perimeter looks rather than exploiting mismatches inside. His veteran positioning yielded a mildly positive defensive score, but the inefficient shot profile ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Flawless finishing around the basket kept his offensive efficiency pristine during a short stint. However, uncharacteristic struggles navigating screens led to a negative defensive rating, capping his overall influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

Completely neutralized on the offensive end, forcing two bad shots late in the shot clock. The inability to generate separation or contribute in the hustle categories resulted in a steep -4.8 impact during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Failed to leave any tangible imprint during his brief rotation minutes, struggling to establish deep post position. A lack of offensive involvement and a few missed defensive rotations resulted in a quick hook and a negative net score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -98.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0