Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Poole Hard 7/18 +1.9
McGowens 8/15 +0.9
Williamson Open 10/15 +0.6
Peavy 5/12 -2.6
Fears 3/11 -6.6
Queen 3/9 -4.0
Matković 1/3 -1.6
Hawkins Hard 0/2 -2.0
Missi Open 1/1 +0.6

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 9/18 -2.3
Alexander-Walker Hard 6/18 -5.5
Risacher 8/13 +8.2
Porziņģis Hard 4/11 +0.8
Daniels 6/11 -0.2
Gueye 3/10 -4.2
Kennard Hard 5/6 +7.4
Krejčí 2/5 -0.9
Newell Open 1/3 -1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
ATL
38/86 Field Goals 44/95
44.2% Field Goal % 46.3%
8/28 3-Pointers 18/47
28.6% 3-Point % 38.3%
16/25 Free Throws 11/17
64.0% Free Throw % 64.7%
51.5% True Shooting % 57.1%
49 Total Rebounds 66
6 Offensive 11
34 Defensive 38
26 Assists 30
1.37 Assist/TO Ratio 1.43
19 Turnovers 19
13 Steals 13
9 Blocks 10
15 Fouls 19
54 Points in Paint 50
29 Fast Break Pts 17
19 Points off TOs 26
8 Second Chance Pts 15
38 Bench Points 33
1 Largest Lead 25
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Dyson Daniels
13 PTS · 8 REB · 8 AST · 35.4 MIN
+18.97
2
Micah Peavy
11 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 29.5 MIN
+17.23
3
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
17 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 33.6 MIN
+16.96
4
Zion Williamson
22 PTS · 8 REB · 6 AST · 31.4 MIN
+16.11
5
Zaccharie Risacher
25 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 33.6 MIN
+15.81
6
Luke Kennard
13 PTS · 0 REB · 1 AST · 21.7 MIN
+15.08
7
Mouhamed Gueye
10 PTS · 11 REB · 6 AST · 31.4 MIN
+13.4
8
Jordan Poole
21 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 38.6 MIN
+11.36
9
Bryce McGowens
20 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 36.8 MIN
+11.33
10
Derik Queen
6 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 18.6 MIN
+9.87
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 ATL shot clock Team TURNOVER 100–117
Q4 0:33 J. Fears driving Layup (11 PTS) 100–117
Q4 0:39 ATL shot clock Team TURNOVER 98–117
Q4 0:39 TEAM offensive REBOUND 98–117
Q4 0:40 MISS N. Alexander-Walker 25' turnaround fadeaway 3PT 98–117
Q4 0:41 N. Alexander-Walker REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 98–117
Q4 0:42 MISS N. Alexander-Walker 3PT 98–117
Q4 1:03 TEAM defensive REBOUND 98–117
Q4 1:05 MISS B. McGowens 27' step back 3PT 98–117
Q4 1:13 V. Krejčí 25' 3PT (5 PTS) (J. Johnson 5 AST) 98–117
Q4 1:38 J. Fears 17' pullup Jump Shot (9 PTS) (M. Peavy 6 AST) 98–114
Q4 1:54 N. Alexander-Walker driving Layup (17 PTS) 96–114
Q4 2:03 V. Krejčí REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 96–112
Q4 2:08 MISS J. Johnson 25' step back 3PT 96–112
Q4 2:20 M. Gueye REBOUND (Off:4 Def:7) 96–112

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
Zaccharie Risacher actually won the night
25 points, 8 boards, 0 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+19.4), hustle (+10.2), and shot-making (+7.1), pushing Net Impact to +18.6.
Scoring +19.4
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +10.2
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +7.1
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jeremiah Fears too hard
11 points, 4 boards, 3 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-9.5) and defense (-0.9), pulling Net Impact down to -14.2.
Turnovers -9.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -0.9
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +1.1
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
hidden value
Luke Kennard's value was hiding in plain sight
13 points, 0 boards, 1 assist undersells it. scoring (+12.2), shot-making (+4.0), and defense (+1.3) pushed his Net Impact to +7.3.
Scoring +12.2
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +4.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Defense +1.3
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jalen Johnson too hard
19 points, 8 boards, 5 assists gave him counting-stat cover, but turnovers (-14.2) and defense (-1.1) pulled Net Impact down to +3.2.
Turnovers -14.2
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.1
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.6
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 35.9m
19
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Disastrous overall impact (-11.3) despite decent raw production. His inability to connect from deep cramped spacing, while hidden negatives like blown rotations severely punished the team during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +9.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Dyson Daniels 35.4m
13
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.7

Masterful two-way performance defined by elite defensive disruption (+9.9) and high-level connective passing. His ability to orchestrate the offense without forcing perimeter shots kept the unit in a perfect rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +4.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.3

Overcame brutal perimeter shooting through sheer defensive tenacity (+8.5) and relentless hustle (+5.8). His point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's sets enough to keep his overall impact highly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
25
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.6

An incredible perimeter explosion drove a massive box score rating, but the modest total impact (+1.6) suggests significant defensive give-back. The sheer volume of deep makes was the defining element, though it may have come at the expense of structural integrity on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Mouhamed Gueye 31.4m
10
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.3

Anchored the team with a monstrous defensive performance (+12.1) that completely erased his offensive inefficiency. Controlling the glass and altering shots at a high rate drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +41.6
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +14.0
Defense +5.8
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 5
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Spacing the floor effectively provided offensive gravity, but his overall impact was surprisingly muted (+0.5). He likely struggled with physical matchups inside or gave up ground in pick-and-roll coverage, neutralizing his shooting value.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 21.7m
13
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Elite floor-spacing and hyper-efficient shooting severely punished defensive rotations. His gravity alone opened up the floor, driving a massive positive impact without needing high usage.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

A negative overall impact (-2.2) driven by defensive limitations and low-volume offensive output. His inability to consistently bend the defense or contain his matchup bled value during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Asa Newell 7.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

Struggled mightily in a short stint, bleeding value (-5.3) through defensive lapses and an inability to finish inside. The game moved too fast for him during his rotation, leading to quick negative swings.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Logged mere seconds at the end of a quarter. A purely rotational cameo that yielded negligible impact.

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 0.3m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -1.2
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Jordan Poole 38.5m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Heavy perimeter volume fueled a massive offensive bounce-back, yet his total impact (+2.4) lagged far behind his component scores. This discrepancy strongly suggests that costly live-ball turnovers or forced shots inside the arc limited his true value.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Zion Williamson 31.4m
22
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.6

Interior dominance drove a massive box score rating, but his modest overall impact (+2.6) points to hidden costs. Poor transition defense or off-ball tracking likely bled value back to the opponent, keeping his net influence grounded despite the efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 26.6m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.2

Wasted possessions and poor perimeter shot selection tanked his overall value (-10.5). A steep drop in scoring efficiency forced the offense into stagnant stretches that the defense easily exploited in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Derik Queen 18.6m
6
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Relentless hustle and elite interior defense (+9.8) defined this highly positive stint. He completely overcame a rough finishing night by generating extra possessions and shutting down the paint on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Karlo Matković 13.5m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

A steep drop in offensive aggression was completely offset by sturdy rim deterrence (+5.4 Def). Anchoring the paint in drop coverage kept his overall impact in the green despite a nearly non-existent scoring footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -60.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

A classic empty-calories performance where strong offensive volume masked a negative overall impact (-1.5). Costly defensive breakdowns or transition turnovers likely erased the value of his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Micah Peavy 29.5m
11
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.4

Connective playmaking and versatile defense (+6.9) fueled a massive breakout performance. His willingness to attack the paint and collapse the defense compensated perfectly for a cold night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Yves Missi 24.4m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.9

Elite defensive metrics (+7.7) highlighted a stint defined by excellent switchability and rim protection. However, complete offensive passivity prevented him from generating a larger overall impact on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

A complete offensive ghosting cratered his impact (-8.4) in limited minutes. Failing to generate any gravity or convert open looks allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Provided slight positive value through positional rebounding and veteran defensive rotations (+2.1 Def). This was a brief, low-usage stint that stabilized the second unit without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1