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 179 attempts

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 5/15 -5.8
Alexander-Walker 4/14 -5.1
Okongwu Open 7/13 +0.6
Daniels 4/13 -5.7
Porziņģis 2/12 -7.1
Risacher 7/11 +4.6
Krejčí Hard 3/6 +2.3
Kennard Hard 3/5 +3.9

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 7/17 -2.3
Barnes Open 8/16 -2.7
Ingram Hard 8/14 +5.3
Quickley Hard 5/11 +2.5
Murray-Boyles Open 8/10 +3.2
Mamukelashvili 4/9 -0.3
Walter Hard 1/5 -2.9
Dick 4/4 +5.0
Shead Hard 2/3 +2.4
Agbaji Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ATL
TOR
35/89 Field Goals 47/90
39.3% Field Goal % 52.2%
12/34 3-Pointers 12/37
35.3% 3-Point % 32.4%
18/21 Free Throws 12/19
85.7% Free Throw % 63.2%
50.9% True Shooting % 60.0%
55 Total Rebounds 54
8 Offensive 7
38 Defensive 39
28 Assists 34
1.87 Assist/TO Ratio 2.27
14 Turnovers 13
11 Steals 10
1 Blocks 5
21 Fouls 16
44 Points in Paint 64
16 Fast Break Pts 29
23 Points off TOs 16
14 Second Chance Pts 8
29 Bench Points 31
0 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Collin Murray-Boyles
17 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 31.1 MIN
+28.32
2
Onyeka Okongwu
17 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 36.4 MIN
+25.16
3
Brandon Ingram
19 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 34.7 MIN
+16.03
4
Luke Kennard
10 PTS · 0 REB · 4 AST · 21.6 MIN
+14.94
5
Scottie Barnes
18 PTS · 8 REB · 10 AST · 36.8 MIN
+12.69
6
Zaccharie Risacher
16 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 22.3 MIN
+11.64
7
Immanuel Quickley
16 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 30.6 MIN
+11.31
8
Vít Krejčí
10 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 27.4 MIN
+10.93
9
Gradey Dick
11 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 18.1 MIN
+10.75
10
Sandro Mamukelashvili
12 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 22.5 MIN
+9.16
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:12 TOR shot clock Team TURNOVER 100–118
Q4 0:36 R. Barrett REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 100–118
Q4 0:39 MISS D. Daniels 29' 3PT 100–118
Q4 0:49 B. Ingram 25' 3PT (19 PTS) (J. Shead 5 AST) 100–118
Q4 1:06 S. Barnes REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 100–115
Q4 1:09 MISS J. Johnson 29' pullup bank 3PT 100–115
Q4 1:17 C. Murray-Boyles cutting Layup (17 PTS) (S. Barnes 10 AST) 100–115
Q4 1:23 C. Murray-Boyles REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 100–113
Q4 1:25 MISS N. Alexander-Walker driving finger roll Layup 100–113
Q4 1:34 R. Barrett cutting finger roll Layup (17 PTS) (S. Barnes 9 AST) 100–113
Q4 1:41 V. Krejčí personal FOUL (4 PF) 100–111
Q4 1:42 O. Okongwu 26' 3PT (17 PTS) (D. Daniels 3 AST) 100–111
Q4 1:43 D. Daniels REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 97–111
Q4 1:45 MISS N. Alexander-Walker driving finger roll Layup 97–111
Q4 1:53 R. Barrett cutting Layup (15 PTS) (J. Shead 4 AST) 97–111

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Collin Murray-Boyles actually won the night
17 points, 7 boards, 7 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+14.7), hustle (+7.9), and defense (+4.7), pushing Net Impact to +21.4.
Scoring +14.7
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +7.9
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Defense +4.7
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Nickeil Alexander-Walker too hard
14 points, 5 boards, 4 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-7.1) and defense (-1.6), pulling Net Impact down to -7.0.
Turnovers -7.1
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.6
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +0.9
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Dyson Daniels too hard
11 points, 6 boards, 3 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-4.7) and defense (-3.7), pulling Net Impact down to -8.1.
Turnovers -4.7
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -3.7
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.2
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold RJ Barrett too hard
17 points, 6 boards, 4 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-9.5), pulling Net Impact down to -1.7.
Turnovers -9.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Hustle +1.8
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +4.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 36.8m
18
pts
8
reb
10
ast
Impact
+8.0

Commanded the offense from the elbows, using his size to survey the floor and thread high-value passes to cutters. Despite excellent creation, a handful of careless live-ball turnovers and missed perimeter looks flattened his overall net impact. His physical downhill drives consistently collapsed the paint, though finishing through contact was inconsistent.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 34.7m
19
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Picked apart the midrange with methodical isolation scoring, forcing the defense to commit early double-teams. His length on the perimeter disrupted multiple passing lanes, driving a surprisingly robust defensive rating. A patient approach against switch-heavy schemes allowed him to dictate the tempo of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S RJ Barrett 31.5m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.7

Tunnel vision on drives resulted in a slew of forced, heavily contested layups that bailed out the defense. While his point-of-attack defense and transition hustle were genuinely excellent, the offensive inefficiency created a negative feedback loop. Opponents happily lived with his low-quality perimeter attempts early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.3%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
17
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+21.4

Put on an absolute clinic in rim-running and finishing through contact, continuing a dominant streak of interior efficiency. His hyper-active hands and flawless weak-side rotations completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack. This was a masterclass in low-usage, high-leverage basketball, defined by relentless energy on 50/50 balls.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Over-dribbling against set defenses led to stagnant possessions and late-clock bail-out heaves. He found success pushing the pace, but defensive miscommunications on off-ball screens allowed easy backdoor cuts. The scoring volume was ultimately offset by poor defensive awareness during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Operated beautifully as a release valve against perimeter traps, making quick connective passes to keep the offense flowing. His mobility on the perimeter allowed the team to seamlessly switch pick-and-rolls without bleeding mismatches. A few missed defensive assignments kept his impact modest, but his offensive fluidity was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 18.1m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump by relocating flawlessly along the perimeter to find soft spots in the zone. His immediate trigger on catch-and-shoot looks punished defensive rotations and provided massive spacing value. Active closeouts and disciplined transition defense rounded out a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 17.4m
5
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Changed the geometry of the game with relentless ball pressure, completely disrupting the opposing point guard's rhythm. His offensive impact was driven entirely by decisive, probing drives that collapsed the defense and created wide-open kick-outs. A textbook example of how to control a game's tempo without needing a high volume of shot attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Rushed his mechanics on spot-up opportunities, resulting in a string of long misses that ignited opponent fast breaks. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against the primary creators. Looked visibly sped up by the defensive pressure, leading to a highly disjointed stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.4

Blew a crucial defensive rotation early in his stint, immediately landing him in the coach's doghouse. His offensive hesitance allowed defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter. A highly forgettable appearance defined by a lack of aggression and poor spatial awareness.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 39.0m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

A heavy volume of contested floaters and missed layups severely dragged down his net rating despite strong hustle metrics. His point-of-attack defense remained disruptive, but empty offensive possessions allowed opponents to leak out in transition. The inability to punish drop coverage ultimately neutralized his playmaking value.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Johnson 36.5m
13
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.2

Forced isolation drives into traffic led to a barrage of clanked attempts at the rim, tanking his offensive value. Despite outstanding defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays, his inability to convert on the perimeter cratered his overall impact. Opposing wings successfully dared him to shoot from deep, stalling the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +16.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.4m
17
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.4

Dominated the interior with impeccable verticality, deterring multiple attempts at the rim to anchor a stellar defensive rating. His willingness to step out and knock down trailing threes forced opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for guards. Relentless activity on the glass and timely weak-side rotations defined a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +10.4
Defense +4.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

Settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, completely derailing the team's offensive rhythm. While he maintained solid defensive positioning on the wing, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions buried his overall impact. His shot selection played right into the defense's hands, halting any sustained momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

Capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities to shatter his recent scoring slump. His offensive spacing drove a strong positive box score impact, though slight defensive lapses kept his overall rating grounded. A crucial second-half shooting stretch punished defensive rotations and stretched the floor effectively.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Provided a steadying presence as a secondary ball-handler, making quick reads against defensive pressure to keep the offense humming. Strong closeouts and disciplined rotational defense yielded positive metrics across the board. However, a passive approach during key stretches limited his overall footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 21.6m
10
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Punished late closeouts with lethal precision from beyond the arc, maximizing his limited touches. His gravity as a shooter warped the opposing zone defense, creating immense off-ball value that drove a highly positive box score impact. Surprising defensive discipline on switches ensured he wasn't targeted on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Brick after brick from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag into the paint and clog driving lanes. Even with solid rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes, his offensive inefficiency created a massive drag on the starting unit. Opposing bigs successfully bodied him off his spots, forcing off-balance attempts that fueled transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.7%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that offered no real opportunity to influence the game. A couple of active closeouts registered slight hustle value, but he was otherwise invisible. The coaching staff quickly pivoted away from his frontcourt rotation spot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0