Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
TOR lead ATL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ATL 2P — 3P —
TOR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 10/21 +2.2
Alexander-Walker 10/19 +5.4
Daniels 9/13 +3.3
Risacher 3/11 -5.4
Wallace Hard 4/9 +2.5
Okongwu 2/9 -5.9
Krejčí Hard 4/6 +5.8
Gueye Hard 0/2 -1.7
Houstan Hard 0/1 -0.9

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 11/19 +4.1
Ingram 11/15 +8.1
Barnes 8/14 +1.1
Quickley Hard 5/13 -0.6
Mamukelashvili 5/10 -0.5
Shead Hard 3/7 +1.1
Murray-Boyles Open 3/5 -0.2
Dick 2/5 -0.3
Walter 1/2 +0.5
Bamba Open 0/2 -2.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ATL
TOR
42/91 Field Goals 49/92
46.2% Field Goal % 53.3%
17/39 3-Pointers 12/31
43.6% 3-Point % 38.7%
16/19 Free Throws 24/26
84.2% Free Throw % 92.3%
58.9% True Shooting % 64.8%
45 Total Rebounds 54
7 Offensive 10
29 Defensive 38
32 Assists 28
2.00 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
15 Turnovers 14
10 Steals 10
3 Blocks 8
19 Fouls 20
46 Points in Paint 60
21 Fast Break Pts 19
20 Points off TOs 23
15 Second Chance Pts 12
24 Bench Points 35
6 Largest Lead 17
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Brandon Ingram
29 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 33.8 MIN
+28.99
2
Dyson Daniels
20 PTS · 5 REB · 12 AST · 34.2 MIN
+27.44
3
Sandro Mamukelashvili
13 PTS · 12 REB · 8 AST · 31.9 MIN
+24.43
4
Scottie Barnes
20 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 32.4 MIN
+22.45
5
RJ Barrett
29 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 29.9 MIN
+18.98
6
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
31 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 35.9 MIN
+18.34
7
Jalen Johnson
30 PTS · 7 REB · 9 AST · 37.2 MIN
+17.9
8
Vít Krejčí
13 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 23.1 MIN
+11.93
9
Immanuel Quickley
15 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 32.6 MIN
+10.39
10
Keaton Wallace
11 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 19.0 MIN
+9.67
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 M. Bamba REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 117–134
Q4 0:19 MISS Z. Risacher driving finger roll Layup 117–134
Q4 0:30 Z. Risacher REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 117–134
Q4 0:30 MISS M. Bamba putback Layup 117–134
Q4 0:31 M. Bamba REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 117–134
Q4 0:34 MISS M. Bamba driving Layup 117–134
Q4 0:47 J. Walter REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 117–134
Q4 0:49 MISS C. Houstan 27' running pullup 3PT 117–134
Q4 0:52 K. Wallace REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 117–134
Q4 0:54 MISS J. Walter finger roll Layup 117–134
Q4 1:02 G. Dick REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 117–134
Q4 1:05 MISS K. Wallace 28' 3PT 117–134
Q4 1:23 J. Shead bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 117–134
Q4 1:33 V. Krejčí personal FOUL (5 PF) 117–134
Q4 1:35 C. Murray-Boyles REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 117–134

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 33.8m
29
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.3

Surgical mid-range execution shattered his recent efficiency slump and drove a massive positive rating. By patiently dissecting his matchups and converting highly contested twos at a blistering rate, he stabilized the entire half-court offense. He compounded this scoring clinic with locked-in weakside defense, blowing up several cutting lanes to secure the dominant shift.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.2%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +26.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +6.6
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
15
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.4

Poor shot selection from the perimeter ultimately tanked his overall effectiveness. Settling for heavily contested, early-clock triples resulted in long rebounds that ignited opponent fast breaks. Even a strong showing in loose-ball recoveries couldn't mathematically overcome the damage done by his inefficient shooting volume.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 32.4m
20
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.1

Bully-ball tactics in the paint generated a highly efficient offensive footprint. Refusing to settle for perimeter jumpers, he relentlessly attacked the rim to collapse the defense and create high-value possessions. This physical dominance translated directly to the other end, where his elite rim-deterrence metrics suffocated the opposition's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 29.9m
29
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.5

Unrelenting downhill pressure defined a highly successful offensive outing. By aggressively hunting his shot and punishing drop coverage with perfectly timed perimeter daggers, he forced the defense to constantly scramble. Active hands in the passing lanes provided enough hustle value to ensure his high-usage role translated to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Extreme offensive passivity ruined an otherwise fundamentally sound defensive shift. Despite maintaining his streak of highly efficient shooting when he actually looked at the basket, his reluctance to demand the ball allowed the defense to completely ignore him. This lack of gravity bogged down the spacing for everyone else, dragging his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+22.2

Exceptional connective passing and elite defensive positioning drove a massive positive swing. While his outside shot abandoned him, he smartly pivoted to operating as an offensive hub from the high post, picking apart defensive rotations with precision. His ability to clean the glass and immediately initiate transition sequences overwhelmed the opposition during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +15.2
Defense +3.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Floating on the perimeter without asserting any offensive gravity resulted in a highly ineffective stint. Taking only two shots in nearly a full quarter of action allowed his defender to freely muck up actions in the paint. Slight defensive missteps compounded this passivity, leaving his unit vulnerable to dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 15.2m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Despite breaking out of a horrific recent shooting slump, a lack of playmaking severely limited his overall utility. He managed to knock down a few opportunistic looks, but his inability to create advantages off the bounce stalled the offense when run through him. Moderate defensive contributions kept the bleeding to a minimum during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 14.3m
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

Forcing the issue against set defenses derailed his efficiency and hurt the team's momentum. A tendency to settle for contested pull-up jumpers rather than initiating deeper offensive sets resulted in empty trips that sparked transition runs the other way. Without enough disruptive hustle plays to compensate, his aggressive but flawed shot profile proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

A hyper-focused defensive cameo kept his brief appearance slightly in the green. Completely ignoring the offensive end, he dedicated all his energy to blowing up perimeter actions and staying glued to his assignment. This specialized role-playing provided just enough value to survive a short stint without giving up a run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mo Bamba 1.6m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Rim deterrence in a tiny sample size salvaged an otherwise clunky appearance. Bricking two quick interior attempts threatened to derail his shift, but his massive wingspan successfully altered a pair of drives on the other end. This brief flash of paint protection kept his net rating afloat.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Logged just over a minute of garbage-time action without recording a single tangible statistic. The negative rating is entirely a product of the opponent scoring during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.1m
30
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.8

High-volume scoring masked a surprisingly negative overall footprint on the floor. While he hunted his shot aggressively to exceed his recent scoring averages, the resulting empty trips from eleven missed field goals allowed opponents to leak out in transition. His defensive metrics barely moved the needle, failing to offset the breakdowns that occurred during his heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
31
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.8

Relentless perimeter aggression fueled a highly productive shift, keeping the defense constantly on its heels. By confidently stepping into transition threes and converting at a high clip, he stretched the floor to its breaking point. He paired this offensive explosion with phenomenal hustle metrics, consistently blowing up passing lanes to create extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +23.9
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -11.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Dyson Daniels 34.2m
20
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
+14.4

Elite two-way execution defined this masterclass, driving a massive positive swing when he was on the floor. He ruthlessly exploited defensive gaps to finish highly efficient interior looks, completely abandoning low-percentage perimeter shots. Combined with suffocating point-of-attack defense, his floor-general duties translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 30.3m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.7

Offensive futility completely cratered his value, resulting in a team-worst impact rating. Forcing unusual perimeter looks and bricking all three deep attempts completely stalled the half-court rhythm. Even with solid rim-protection metrics, his inability to convert easy interior looks compared to his normal standard made him a massive net-negative.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

A stark departure from his recent scorching shooting stretch dragged down his overall impact. Clanking all three of his perimeter attempts and struggling to finish inside created empty possessions that the opposition easily capitalized on. Despite decent defensive positioning, the sheer volume of missed shots neutralized any value he brought without the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Flawless perimeter execution anchored a highly efficient supporting shift. Punishing defensive rotations by burying every single spot-up attempt he took completely changed the spacing dynamics of the second unit. He supplemented this sharpshooting with timely closeouts and active hands to keep his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Exceptional defensive anchoring was entirely undone by a complete lack of offensive utility. Failing to convert even basic looks around the rim allowed the opposition to completely ignore him in the half-court. Despite blowing up several pick-and-roll sets on the other end, playing four-on-five offensively dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.1%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Taking on a surprisingly aggressive shooting role yielded mixed results for the overall unit. While his willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense, the sheer volume of perimeter misses occasionally short-circuited the offense's rhythm. Sturdy on-ball defense ultimately salvaged his shift, keeping his net rating slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 8.1m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

A completely invisible offensive stint severely limited his usefulness during a brief rotation appearance. Refusing to even look at the basket allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint for others. Compounding this passivity was a string of defensive miscommunications that bled points in a short window.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

A rushed perimeter attempt defined this incredibly brief cameo. Forcing a contested deep look early in the shot clock resulted in an empty trip that immediately sparked an opponent transition opportunity. There simply wasn't enough floor time to generate any positive momentum to offset the quick miss.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0