Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 168 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 12/23 +2.7
McConnell Hard 10/17 +5.6
Nesmith Hard 5/12 +1.5
Jackson 2/7 -4.0
Walker Hard 0/5 -4.5
Huff 4/4 +5.0
Potter 2/4 +0.5
Sheppard 2/4 +0.3
Bradley 3/3 +2.9
Furphy 1/3 -0.6

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 12/24 +7.1
Bridges 7/13 +2.4
Knueppel Hard 5/12 -0.2
Sexton 5/9 +1.2
Miller Hard 2/8 -3.3
Salaün Hard 2/5 -1.4
Diabaté Open 2/5 -3.0
James Hard 1/3 -0.3
Green 1/3 -0.6
McNeeley 1/2 -0.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
CHA
41/82 Field Goals 39/86
50.0% Field Goal % 45.3%
12/27 3-Pointers 16/44
44.4% 3-Point % 36.4%
20/21 Free Throws 18/24
95.2% Free Throw % 75.0%
62.5% True Shooting % 58.0%
48 Total Rebounds 47
10 Offensive 8
31 Defensive 27
25 Assists 29
1.25 Assist/TO Ratio 1.71
19 Turnovers 16
9 Steals 8
6 Blocks 3
27 Fouls 22
52 Points in Paint 42
9 Fast Break Pts 14
22 Points off TOs 23
9 Second Chance Pts 22
47 Bench Points 48
12 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
LaMelo Ball
33 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 26.8 MIN
+26.57
2
T.J. McConnell
23 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 27.8 MIN
+24.36
3
Pascal Siakam
30 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 35.5 MIN
+17.64
4
Kon Knueppel
18 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 29.3 MIN
+17.28
5
Miles Bridges
19 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 36.1 MIN
+15.4
6
Aaron Nesmith
16 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 35.2 MIN
+9.17
7
Johnny Furphy
7 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 26.3 MIN
+9.07
8
Jay Huff
10 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 24.2 MIN
+8.56
9
Collin Sexton
11 PTS · 0 REB · 5 AST · 17.9 MIN
+5.93
10
Tony Bradley
7 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 15.0 MIN
+5.55
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Furphy REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 114–112
Q4 0:00 MISS C. Sexton 17' step back Shot 114–112
Q4 0:08 B. Sheppard Free Throw 2 of 2 (7 PTS) 114–112
Q4 0:08 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–112
Q4 0:08 MISS B. Sheppard Free Throw 1 of 2 113–112
Q4 0:08 M. Diabaté personal FOUL (4 PF) (Sheppard 2 FT) 113–112
Q4 0:09 M. Bridges personal FOUL (1 PF) 113–112
Q4 0:09 T. McConnell STEAL (4 STL) 113–112
Q4 0:09 M. Diabaté bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 113–112
Q4 0:11 P. Siakam driving Layup (30 PTS) 113–112
Q4 0:23 B. Sheppard REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 111–112
Q4 0:27 MISS K. Knueppel 7' turnaround Shot 111–112
Q4 0:51 T. McConnell 11' pullup Jump Shot (23 PTS) 111–112
Q4 1:03 A. Nesmith STEAL (1 STL) 109–112
Q4 1:03 L. Ball bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 109–112

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 36.1m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.8

Leveraged his athleticism to execute critical weak-side rotations (+5.6 Def) while providing reliable scoring punch. However, a lack of secondary hustle plays and a few stagnant offensive stretches kept his overall net rating from matching his high box metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 35.7m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Generated plenty of second-chance opportunities through a strong +4.0 hustle rating on the interior. Unfortunately, poor finishing around the rim and mistimed defensive gambles allowed opponents to capitalize in transition, dragging his final impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 29.3m
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.9

Punished defensive gaps with decisive drives and timely perimeter shooting to fuel a robust +16.2 box impact. Complemented his offensive focal role with active hands in the passing lanes, cementing a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +8.2
Defense -3.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 19.1m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.5

A severe regression in shot quality tanked his offensive value, as he repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the clock. While his length provided some baseline defensive resistance (+3.5 Def), the wasted offensive possessions resulted in a team-worst -8.7 impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Collin Sexton 17.9m
11
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.9

Shook off a significant dip in scoring volume by pivoting to a high-energy facilitator role. A phenomenal +5.9 hustle rating defined his stint, as he constantly disrupted ball-handlers and accelerated the pace off live rebounds.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -61.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -9.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
LaMelo Ball 26.8m
33
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+26.0

Absolutely torched defensive coverages from deep, using his lethal pull-up gravity to warp the floor and drive a monstrous +21.0 box metric. He paired this offensive explosion with engaged, disruptive perimeter defense (+6.0 Def) to completely dominate his minutes.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 40.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +23.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +9.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Sion James 22.2m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Consistently caught out of position on defensive rotations, bleeding easy interior looks and dragging his impact down to a dismal -8.5. His ongoing offensive struggles only compounded the issue, as he failed to generate any counter-pressure to offset the defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 17.5m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Provided competent on-ball harassment (+3.2 Def) but was virtually ignored by the opponent on the other end of the floor. His inability to punish sagging defenders bogged down the half-court spacing, leading to a starkly negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Struggled to find the range from the perimeter, which allowed defenders to pack the paint during his shifts. While he maintained structural discipline on defense, the lack of offensive gravity ultimately yielded a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Made up for a quiet scoring night by executing the dirty work, diving for loose balls and maintaining airtight perimeter containment (+3.3 Def). That willingness to embrace a gritty, low-usage role kept his team in the positive during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 10.8m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Brought commendable physicality to the glass, fighting for positioning to earn a solid +2.9 hustle score. However, his limited offensive repertoire made it difficult to sustain momentum, allowing opponents to edge out his unit during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 35.5m
30
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+23.0

Elite shot creation and floor-spacing punished drop coverages all night, driving a massive +17.0 box metric. He paired that offensive focal-point role with disciplined weak-side rotations (+4.5 Def) to anchor the starting unit's success.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +22.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +15.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Aaron Nesmith 35.2m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Relentless energy generated a stellar +5.6 hustle rating through deflected passes and extended possessions. However, erratic perimeter execution and forced attempts in traffic ultimately dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Johnny Furphy 26.3m
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Despite solid defensive positioning that yielded a +3.2 rating on that end, his overall impact slipped into the red due to offensive passivity. Passing up open looks allowed the defense to sag, stalling the half-court flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jay Huff 24.2m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Flawless shot selection and floor-stretching from the frontcourt maximized spacing for the guards. He compounded that offensive efficiency with excellent rim deterrence (+4.4 Def), making him a highly effective two-way presence in his rotation window.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Quenton Jackson 17.9m
4
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.8

A severe dip in scoring production was completely masked by absolute havoc-wreaking on the defensive end. Elite ball-pressure and a team-high +7.1 hustle rating disrupted opponent sets enough to force a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+22.2

Completely dictated the tempo of the game with aggressive downhill attacks and suffocating point-of-attack defense (+9.7 Def). His ability to seamlessly blend a massive scoring surge with disruptive backcourt pressure resulted in an overwhelming +15.8 net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +17.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
Ben Sheppard 26.5m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Struggled to leave a footprint on the game outside of basic spot-up duties, reflected in negligible hustle and defensive metrics. Opponents actively targeted him in switch actions, bleeding points and tanking his overall impact to a team-worst -7.3.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tony Bradley 15.0m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Anchored the paint effectively during his minutes by utilizing verticality to deter drivers (+4.4 Def). Capitalizing on every dump-off pass without wasting possessions ensured his shift was highly productive.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Offensive rhythm completely evaporated as he forced contested looks and failed to convert a single field goal. While his weak-side rim protection (+4.0 Def) remained sharp, the empty offensive possessions severely damaged his overall net score.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Provided adequate spacing during a brief rotation stint but failed to generate much gravity. A lack of physical interior presence kept his defensive and hustle metrics muted, resulting in a perfectly neutral shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Traded offensive volume for sheer energy, generating a massive +6.0 hustle rating through loose ball recoveries and hard closeouts. That relentless motor effectively propped up his impact score despite a near-total absence of shot attempts.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 2.3m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting appearance that lacked any measurable hustle plays. A couple of missed assignments in transition quickly pushed his brief stint into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0