Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 187 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller Hard 11/19 +10.0
Ball Hard 5/17 -4.8
Knueppel 9/14 +7.5
Bridges Hard 4/12 -2.2
Sexton Hard 6/10 +4.0
Williams Hard 3/5 +2.2
James 0/5 -5.4
Connaughton 2/4 -0.6
Mann Hard 1/3 +0.4
Kalkbrenner Open 2/3 +0.3

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Melton 8/16 +1.5
Green Hard 8/14 +5.7
Curry Hard 6/12 +2.0
Richard 5/12 -3.6
Podziemski Hard 5/9 +4.3
Hield Hard 5/8 +3.8
Horford Hard 4/7 +3.5
Moody Hard 4/6 +6.1
Post 3/5 +1.5
Payton II Open 2/3 +1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
GSW
43/94 Field Goals 51/93
45.7% Field Goal % 54.8%
16/44 3-Pointers 23/52
36.4% 3-Point % 44.2%
14/17 Free Throws 11/13
82.4% Free Throw % 84.6%
57.2% True Shooting % 68.9%
53 Total Rebounds 45
12 Offensive 9
32 Defensive 32
27 Assists 34
1.59 Assist/TO Ratio 2.83
17 Turnovers 11
5 Steals 8
3 Blocks 7
22 Fouls 23
48 Points in Paint 56
10 Fast Break Pts 19
16 Points off TOs 23
22 Second Chance Pts 16
49 Bench Points 72
0 Largest Lead 22
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kon Knueppel
24 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 29.3 MIN
+25.2
2
De'Anthony Melton
24 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 21.4 MIN
+20.57
3
Buddy Hield
14 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 17.7 MIN
+20.51
4
Brandin Podziemski
16 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 29.7 MIN
+18.24
5
Will Richard
11 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 30.7 MIN
+15.94
6
Brandon Miller
28 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 30.1 MIN
+12.74
7
Moses Moody
12 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 26.9 MIN
+10.95
8
Draymond Green
20 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 26.5 MIN
+10.95
9
Collin Sexton
17 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 23.6 MIN
+10.65
10
Ryan Kalkbrenner
4 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 24.2 MIN
+10.42
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 Q. Post REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 116–136
Q4 0:15 MISS P. Connaughton turnaround Hook 116–136
Q4 0:30 B. Hield driving Layup (14 PTS) 116–136
Q4 0:50 P. Spencer REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 116–134
Q4 0:52 MISS P. Connaughton Free Throw 2 of 2 116–134
Q4 0:52 P. Connaughton Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 116–134
Q4 0:52 Q. Post loose ball personal FOUL (4 PF) (Connaughton 2 FT) 115–134
Q4 0:52 TEAM offensive REBOUND 115–134
Q4 0:52 MISS C. Sexton 10' pullup Shot 115–134
Q4 1:07 T. Jackson-Davis driving DUNK (2 PTS) (W. Richard 5 AST) 115–134
Q4 1:16 W. Richard REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 115–132
Q4 1:20 MISS T. Mann 28' pullup 3PT 115–132
Q4 1:27 P. Connaughton REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 115–132
Q4 1:31 MISS B. Hield 31' 3PT 115–132
Q4 1:43 P. Connaughton driving finger roll Layup (4 PTS) (T. Mann 2 AST) 115–132

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

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Will Richard 30.7m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.1

Absolute dominance in the hustle categories completely masked a subpar shooting night from the perimeter. He was a terror in the passing lanes and generated multiple extra possessions through relentless offensive rebounding. That chaotic, high-energy defensive presence completely derailed the opponent's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +6.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Stephen Curry 29.6m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Uncharacteristic struggles from beyond the arc allowed the defense to pack the paint and stifle the team's overall spacing. He tried to compensate by ramping up his off-ball movement and defensive activity, but the missed jumpers killed crucial momentum swings. The lack of his usual gravitational pull ultimately bogged down the offensive machinery.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moses Moody 26.9m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Elite floor spacing from the corners opened up driving lanes for the primary creators all night. He paired that offensive efficiency with disciplined closeouts, rarely biting on pump fakes and staying attached to his man. Despite a low rebounding rate, his reliable two-way execution provided a stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Draymond Green 26.6m
20
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.6

Punished the defense for sagging off him by confidently knocking down uncontested perimeter shots. He amplified that unexpected scoring punch with his trademark connective passing and high-motor defensive rotations. By capitalizing on the space he was given, he completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +15.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Quinten Post 19.5m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing guards to consistently turn the corner and collapse the defense. While he converted his offensive opportunities efficiently, his inability to protect the paint surrendered easy layups on the other end. That defensive vulnerability ultimately outweighed his reliable finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.6

Exceptional decision-making in the pick-and-roll consistently generated high-quality looks for both himself and his teammates. He augmented his offensive orchestration by aggressively crashing the glass and taking timely charges on the defensive end. That blend of cerebral playmaking and gritty hustle made him an invaluable connective piece.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
24
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.5

Relentless point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's initiation and fueled a series of lethal transition opportunities. He paired that defensive havoc with decisive, aggressive drives to the rim that kept the defense constantly on its heels. This two-way aggression dictated the tempo of the game whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 36.5%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 18.9m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Veteran positioning on defense thwarted multiple post-up attempts and forced contested kick-outs. He perfectly complemented that defensive solidity by trailing the play and punishing drop coverages with timely perimeter shooting. A masterclass in low-mistake, high-IQ basketball that stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +53.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Buddy Hield 17.7m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.9

Surprisingly stout perimeter defense completely stonewalled his primary assignments, forcing multiple late-clock turnovers. He leveraged those defensive stops by sprinting the wings and burying transition triples before the defense could get set. This unexpected two-way dominance resulted in the highest net impact of the night.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.5

Over-helping on dribble penetration repeatedly left shooters wide open on the weak side, bleeding points during his stint. His offensive efficiency was a nice bonus, but it couldn't cover up the rotational breakdowns that compromised the team's defensive shell. Those structural mistakes quickly turned his minutes into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Focused entirely on doing the dirty work during his limited run, battling for positioning and securing loose rebounds. His reluctance to look at the rim allowed defenders to sag off, slightly clogging the half-court spacing. A purely utilitarian shift defined by effort rather than execution.

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 3.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Executed his role perfectly during a brief cameo by setting hard screens and rolling with purpose. He didn't force any action, simply taking the easy finish when the defense collapsed. Kept the structural integrity of the offense intact without making waves.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 30.1m
28
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.3

High-volume shotmaking from beyond the arc masked underlying issues with ball security and defensive rotations. He gave back much of his offensive production by allowing blow-bys on the perimeter during critical stretches. Consequently, a spectacular shooting night translated to only a marginal net positive.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +8.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -16.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Miles Bridges 29.9m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

A steady diet of forced, contested jumpers torpedoed his offensive value and bled transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to stay in front of his primary matchup compounded the damage on the other end. Ultimately, empty offensive possessions and defensive lapses resulted in a cratered net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 29.3m
24
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.9

Elite shot selection and perimeter efficiency drove a massive offensive rating, allowing him to dominate his minutes. He consistently found the soft spots in the defense to generate clean looks from deep. His positional rebounding further amplified his overall positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +20.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +13.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Defensive anchoring completely defined this stint, as his rim protection and verticality deterred multiple drives into the paint. While his offensive usage was minimal, he generated extra possessions through active screening and loose-ball recoveries. That defensive deterrence kept his overall impact firmly in the green despite the lack of scoring.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sion James 24.0m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

Complete offensive invisibility dragged down his overall impact, as defenders simply ignored him on the perimeter to clog the paint. He tried to compensate with high-energy hustle plays and loose ball recoveries, but it wasn't enough to offset the spacing issues. The lack of scoring gravity ultimately suffocated the team's half-court execution while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Efficient downhill attacking generated quality offense, but his complete lack of secondary effort plays undermined those gains. He consistently failed to close out on shooters or fight for loose balls, giving away crucial margins on the glass. Consequently, his impressive scoring output was entirely neutralized by defensive apathy.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
LaMelo Ball 20.9m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

A barrage of ill-advised, early-clock three-pointers derailed the offensive rhythm and fueled opponent transition opportunities. He actually showed surprising engagement at the point of attack defensively, fighting through screens to disrupt actions. However, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions ultimately pushed his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Physical post defense and active hands in the passing lanes drove a quietly effective two-way performance. He completely abandoned the defensive glass, but made up for it by neutralizing his primary matchup in isolation. The combination of timely closeouts and efficient spot-up shooting kept his minutes productive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -50.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

Floating on the perimeter without cutting or screening rendered him an offensive non-factor during his stint. He failed to leverage his length defensively, often getting caught out of position on weak-side rotations. This lack of engagement on both ends allowed the opposition to build momentum whenever he checked in.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 15.1m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.9

Passing up open looks severely compromised the team's offensive flow, allowing the defense to play five-on-four. He brought excellent energy in transition and on 50/50 balls, but his total lack of offensive aggression was a glaring liability. That passivity effectively neutralized any momentum generated by his hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Capitalized on a brief rotation opportunity by decisively attacking closeouts and finishing at the rim. He maintained structural integrity on defense without gambling, ensuring the second unit didn't bleed points. A perfectly functional, low-mistake cameo that kept the team afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 45.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 4.2m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Provided a quick injection of spacing by confidently stepping into catch-and-shoot looks from the wing. His ball movement kept the offense humming during a stagnant stretch, avoiding the trap of over-dribbling. Managed his brief minutes efficiently without making any glaring rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0