Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 174 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 12/25 -1.9
Quickley 8/18 -0.9
Barnes 6/14 -2.5
Mamukelashvili 4/8 +1.5
Ingram Hard 2/7 -1.9
Shead 2/7 -2.9
Walter Hard 1/4 -1.4
Murray-Boyles 1/3 -1.3
Agbaji Open 1/3 -1.7
Battle 1/2 -0.3

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball 7/20 -4.7
Knueppel Hard 4/17 -5.3
Sexton 7/13 +1.7
Bridges 4/9 +0.6
Hall Open 3/5 -1.0
James 2/4 +1.7
McNeeley Hard 1/4 -0.2
Diabaté Open 2/4 -0.8
Salaün 1/4 -1.5
Green Hard 1/2 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
CHA
38/92 Field Goals 32/82
41.3% Field Goal % 39.0%
7/34 3-Pointers 14/38
20.6% 3-Point % 36.8%
14/19 Free Throws 18/22
73.7% Free Throw % 81.8%
48.3% True Shooting % 52.4%
50 Total Rebounds 63
15 Offensive 16
27 Defensive 34
18 Assists 19
3.00 Assist/TO Ratio 1.06
5 Turnovers 18
6 Steals 3
4 Blocks 6
19 Fouls 19
60 Points in Paint 36
14 Fast Break Pts 11
22 Points off TOs 10
18 Second Chance Pts 23
21 Bench Points 44
6 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
RJ Barrett
28 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 35.1 MIN
+19.63
2
Immanuel Quickley
21 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 33.2 MIN
+15.9
3
Collin Murray-Boyles
4 PTS · 15 REB · 3 AST · 32.3 MIN
+13.73
4
LaMelo Ball
15 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 25.1 MIN
+12.36
5
Moussa Diabaté
6 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 30.5 MIN
+11.91
6
Collin Sexton
22 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 23.7 MIN
+10.58
7
Scottie Barnes
17 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 29.1 MIN
+9.51
8
Sandro Mamukelashvili
10 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 24.8 MIN
+8.1
9
Sion James
8 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 27.8 MIN
+7.78
10
PJ Hall
8 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 14.8 MIN
+6.89
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 I. Quickley 25' 3PT (21 PTS) (S. Mamukelashvili 2 AST) 97–96
Q4 0:01 L. Ball driving Layup (15 PTS) 94–96
Q4 0:20 R. Barrett 8' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (28 PTS) 94–94
Q4 0:35 M. Bridges Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 92–94
Q4 0:35 M. Bridges Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 92–93
Q4 0:35 S. Mamukelashvili shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Bridges 2 FT) 92–92
Q4 0:56 R. Barrett Free Throw 1 of 1 (26 PTS) 92–92
Q4 0:56 K. Knueppel shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Barrett 1 FT) 91–92
Q4 0:56 R. Barrett driving Layup (25 PTS) 91–92
Q4 1:08 S. Mamukelashvili REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 89–92
Q4 1:11 MISS L. Ball 28' step back 3PT 89–92
Q4 1:26 K. Knueppel REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 89–92
Q4 1:30 MISS S. Barnes 6' turnaround Hook 89–92
Q4 1:48 C. Murray-Boyles REBOUND (Off:6 Def:9) 89–92
Q4 1:50 MISS K. Knueppel 13' pullup Shot 89–92

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 Kon Knueppel 32.8m
11
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Brutal shot selection and a barrage of missed threes severely damaged his overall rating despite heavy minutes. The sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his respectable defensive effort and activity on the glass.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +9.2
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 30.5m
6
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Anchored the interior with elite defensive positioning and relentless traffic control in the paint. He embraced a low-usage offensive role to focus entirely on protecting the rim and securing extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +12.0
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 30.0m
12
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.8

Defensive lapses and an inability to contain his primary matchup dragged his net score into the negative. While his offensive efficiency was passable, a lack of aggression in attacking the paint limited his ability to offset his defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Sion James 27.8m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
0.0

Flawless execution on spot-up perimeter looks provided a much-needed scoring boost, but subtle defensive breakdowns kept his overall impact slightly negative. He capitalized on his offensive opportunities yet struggled to navigate screens effectively on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 25.1m
15
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.4

High-level playmaking and transition pacing drove a positive impact despite a glaring lack of shooting efficiency. He forced the issue from deep, but his ability to collapse the defense and create for others salvaged his performance.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

A scorching offensive motor and decisive downhill attacks powered his positive rating. He consistently beat his man off the dribble, though defensive inattentiveness slightly mitigated his scoring brilliance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers that failed to fall severely damaged his offensive rating. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to bend the defense or finish through contact made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Offensive invisibility and a failure to secure loose balls resulted in a massive negative swing while he was on the floor. He looked lost within the half-court sets, bleeding value through empty possessions and poor spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -33.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
PJ Hall 14.8m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Highly efficient interior finishing and aggressive box-outs in a condensed role provided a strong spark off the bench. He maximized his minutes by fighting through contact and capitalizing on dump-off passes around the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Josh Green 13.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Minimal involvement and an inability to impact the game's physicality left him as a net negative. He failed to leverage his athleticism in transition, settling into a passive role that allowed opponents to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
TOR Toronto Raptors
S RJ Barrett 35.1m
28
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+23.5

Relentless rim pressure generated a massive overall impact, easily overcoming a frigid night from three-point range. The sheer volume of his interior attacks forced defensive collapses, while solid hustle metrics reflected his high motor in transition.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.1

High-volume perimeter shooting yielded a major scoring spike, though the heavy reliance on contested threes limited his overall efficiency. His positive impact was preserved by timely defensive rotations and an aggressive offensive mindset that kept the opposing backcourt on its heels.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.1

An absolute masterclass in non-scoring impact, driven by dominant work on the glass and elite defensive positioning. He sacrificed his usual offensive rhythm to focus entirely on controlling the paint and generating massive hustle value through deflections and contested shots.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +19.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 29.1m
17
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Aggressive downhill drives fueled a scoring surge that outpaced his recent baseline, though inefficiency from beyond the arc capped his offensive ceiling. His overall value was anchored by versatile defensive rotations that consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 10.9m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite a severe drop in scoring output compared to his recent average, his defensive engagement kept his impact firmly in the positive. A cold shooting night from the perimeter forced him into tough contested looks, but his length disrupted passing lanes effectively in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Efficient floor-spacing from the frontcourt wasn't enough to drag his total impact out of the red due to a lack of defensive resistance. While his shot selection was pristine, an inability to alter shots around the basket negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 24.2m
4
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.3

Elite hustle metrics completely salvaged a rough shooting performance where his jumper abandoned him. He made his mark entirely through grit, diving for loose balls and generating extra possessions to offset his scoring dip.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

A passive offensive approach and missed perimeter looks cratered his overall value during his stint on the floor. He failed to find a rhythm within the flow of the offense, struggling to create separation against tight perimeter coverage.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 11.8m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Marginal involvement on both ends of the floor resulted in a net-negative showing. He struggled to assert himself into the game's flow, floating on the perimeter without generating meaningful defensive pressure or offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -48.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gradey Dick 11.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Continuing a brutal offensive slump, his total lack of shot creation rendered him a liability in the half-court. Without the threat of his jumper to space the floor, defenders freely sagged off, bogging down the team's overall spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Brief rotational minutes offered little opportunity to impact the game's trajectory. A lack of defensive counting stats and minimal offensive touches kept his overall influence virtually neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
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