Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Johnson Hard 8/22 +0.9
Sarr Open 11/19 +0.3
George Hard 4/15 -3.5
Carrington Hard 5/11 +4.7
Champagnie Open 7/9 +3.7
Watkins 4/9 -1.6
Riley 3/6 +0.2
Branham 1/3 -0.3
Cooper Hard 1/1 +1.9
Gill Hard 0/1 -0.9

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball 8/19 -1.8
Bridges 7/13 +1.5
Miller Hard 7/12 +4.9
Knueppel Hard 5/11 +1.6
Sexton 3/6 -0.3
James Open 2/5 -2.2
Kalkbrenner Open 4/4 +2.4
Williams 1/4 -2.4
Diabaté Open 2/3 -0.2
Green Hard 2/2 +4.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
CHA
44/96 Field Goals 41/79
45.8% Field Goal % 51.9%
19/53 3-Pointers 14/36
35.8% 3-Point % 38.9%
8/9 Free Throws 23/30
88.9% Free Throw % 76.7%
57.5% True Shooting % 64.5%
43 Total Rebounds 55
10 Offensive 12
24 Defensive 34
35 Assists 30
2.69 Assist/TO Ratio 1.43
13 Turnovers 21
14 Steals 8
6 Blocks 3
22 Fouls 10
46 Points in Paint 50
9 Fast Break Pts 17
21 Points off TOs 17
22 Second Chance Pts 14
32 Bench Points 31
5 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Justin Champagnie
15 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 32.1 MIN
+24.99
2
Jamir Watkins
11 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 28.8 MIN
+21.5
3
Alex Sarr
24 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 37.3 MIN
+19.19
4
Brandon Miller
21 PTS · 11 REB · 7 AST · 33.3 MIN
+19.14
5
Moussa Diabaté
11 PTS · 14 REB · 0 AST · 32.1 MIN
+16.64
6
Miles Bridges
20 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 28.9 MIN
+13.2
7
Kon Knueppel
16 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 31.9 MIN
+13.11
8
Bub Carrington
15 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 32.3 MIN
+12.52
9
LaMelo Ball
20 PTS · 2 REB · 11 AST · 31.6 MIN
+11.89
10
Collin Sexton
9 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 15.7 MIN
+10.86
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 115–119
Q4 0:00 MISS T. Johnson 28' pullup 3PT 115–119
Q4 0:02 M. Bridges Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 115–119
Q4 0:02 M. Bridges Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 115–118
Q4 0:02 J. Watkins take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Bridges 2 FT) 115–117
Q4 0:03 B. Carrington 28' 3PT pullup (15 PTS) 115–117
Q4 0:09 K. Knueppel Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 112–117
Q4 0:09 TEAM offensive REBOUND 112–116
Q4 0:09 MISS K. Knueppel Free Throw 1 of 2 112–116
Q4 0:09 A. Sarr personal FOUL (3 PF) (Knueppel 2 FT) 112–116
Q4 0:10 M. Bridges REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 112–116
Q4 0:13 MISS L. Ball 29' pullup 3PT 112–116
Q4 0:35 B. Miller REBOUND (Off:3 Def:8) 112–116
Q4 0:38 MISS B. Carrington 26' step back 3PT 112–116
Q4 0:44 J. Champagnie REBOUND (Off:3 Def:8) 112–116

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 33.3m
21
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+16.1

Clinical shot creation from the mid-range and beyond the arc anchored his highly efficient offensive night. He read the defense perfectly, rarely forcing actions and taking advantage of every defensive misstep. Active hands in the passing lanes supplemented his scoring, rounding out a highly polished two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +13.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Moussa Diabaté 32.1m
11
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.9

Dominating the glass and anchoring the paint drove a massive positive impact without requiring offensive touches. He swallowed up driving lanes with excellent verticality, frustrating slashers all night long. By strictly taking high-percentage dump-offs and cleaning up misses, he played a flawless role-player game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +17.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 31.9m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

Timely perimeter spacing kept the offensive engine humming, though his overall impact flatlined due to defensive lapses in transition. He found his spots well in half-court sets, punishing late closeouts with a smooth stroke. Ultimately, the value he provided as a floor-spacer was counterbalanced by the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 31.6m
20
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
+2.1

Errant shot selection and forced perimeter looks completely neutralized his elite playmaking contributions. While he consistently manipulated the defense to create open looks for teammates, his own inefficient volume scoring dragged down the unit's momentum. The high-motor hustle plays were just enough to keep his overall rating hovering at neutral.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 28.9m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Bully-ball drives and confident perimeter shooting created a steady stream of high-quality offensive possessions. He leveraged his physical frame to create mismatches on the wing, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble. A solid commitment to weak-side defensive rotations ensured his scoring punch resulted in a net-positive margin.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Clunky offensive possessions and an inability to stretch the floor severely bogged down the second unit. He repeatedly passed up open looks only to drive into traffic, resulting in stalled sets and wasted shot clocks. Even with decent positional defense, his offensive limitations made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 16.4m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.7

A complete lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to pack the paint and disrupt the team's primary actions. He struggled to finish through contact and looked hesitant when the ball swung his way. Despite throwing his body around for loose balls, the spacing issues he created were too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Flawless execution as a roll man allowed him to maximize his limited minutes with perfect efficiency. He provided a massive interior target, sealing his man early and finishing with soft touch around the rim. His vertical deterrence in the paint forced multiple kick-outs, anchoring a highly effective defensive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Suffocating point-of-attack defense defined this performance, as he relentlessly hounded opposing ball-handlers to disrupt their offensive flow. He dialed back his usual scoring aggression, opting instead to pick his spots carefully and maintain offensive rhythm. It was a mature, two-way shift that prioritized defensive intensity over box-score stuffing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 15.1m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Getting hunted on defensive switches completely erased the value of his perfect shooting night. Opposing guards targeted his lack of lateral quickness, blowing past him to compromise the team's defensive shell. The offensive efficiency was a nice bonus, but he simply gave up too much ground on the other end to stay on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
WAS Washington Wizards
S Alex Sarr 37.3m
24
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

Dominant interior finishing drove a massive spike in his box score metrics, punishing mismatches around the rim all night. He capitalized on high-percentage looks in the paint rather than settling for jumpers, effectively doubling his usual offensive output. Solid positional defense ensured those efficient scoring possessions translated into a positive net margin.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 90.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tre Johnson 36.5m
26
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

Shot-chucking tendencies severely damaged his net impact, as he needed a massive volume of attempts to generate his scoring. While the perimeter stroke caught fire in spurts, the sheer number of empty possessions and forced looks derailed the offense's rhythm. A lack of meaningful defensive resistance meant he gave back every point he produced.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 32.3m
15
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.0

Relying exclusively on the three-ball made him entirely one-dimensional, failing to pressure the rim or collapse the defense. Even though his perimeter stroke was falling, his inability to generate high-leverage hustle plays or defensive stops dragged his overall rating into the red. Opponents easily exploited his lack of physicality on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyshawn George 25.2m
11
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.0

Brutal perimeter efficiency completely neutralized his offensive contributions, as he bricked eight attempts from beyond the arc. He managed to scrape together a flat overall impact strictly through high-motor defensive rotations and relentless loose-ball pursuit. His willingness to do the dirty work kept him on the floor despite the broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.6%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Will Riley 23.5m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

A stark drop in offensive aggression cratered his overall value, looking entirely out of rhythm compared to his recent scoring tears. Passive shot selection allowed the defense to ignore him on the perimeter, stalling the team's half-court flow. He failed to supplement the quiet scoring night with enough secondary hustle to keep his net rating afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -47.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.5

Elite shot selection and relentless rim-running fueled a massive positive impact across the board. He anchored the unit with suffocating defensive rotations, completely erasing opponent drives while generating extra possessions through sheer hustle. This was a masterclass in maximizing value without needing to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +12.0
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.5

Defensive switchability was the catalyst for his stellar rating, as he consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions at the point of attack. He paired that lockdown coverage with timely weak-side hustle, creating a nightmare scenario for the opposing frontcourt. The scoring was just a bonus on a night where his physical tools dictated the tempo.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +9.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Short-burst energy defined this rotational appearance, utilizing quick hands to disrupt passing lanes and generate positive hustle metrics. He didn't force the issue offensively, taking only what the defense conceded while keeping the ball moving. It was a perfectly executed change-of-pace shift that kept the second unit stable.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.2

Floating on the perimeter without purpose led to a net-negative stint in the rotation. He failed to create any meaningful separation against his primary defender, stalling out sets and settling for contested looks. The lack of defensive urgency made it impossible to justify keeping him in the game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +39.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.4

A brief and invisible stint derailed his recent streak of hyper-efficient performances. He failed to establish any interior leverage during his minutes, getting pushed around on defensive switches and contributing nothing to the offensive flow. The coaching staff had to pull the plug early as the unit bled points with him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +78.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1