Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Wembanyama 6/15 -5.2
Harper 9/13 +5.0
Fox 5/13 -3.2
Castle 5/11 -1.3
Vassell Hard 5/10 +2.0
Champagnie Hard 4/7 +5.0
Barnes Hard 3/6 +2.6
Johnson 1/5 -4.2

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller Hard 7/21 -2.7
Ball 5/15 -3.5
Bridges Hard 5/12 -1.3
Knueppel 5/11 -0.6
Diabaté Open 6/9 +1.8
Sexton Hard 7/8 +11.0
Williams Hard 1/5 -2.4
Kalkbrenner Open 3/4 +1.0
James Open 0/2 -2.2
Green Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
CHA
38/80 Field Goals 39/88
47.5% Field Goal % 44.3%
13/34 3-Pointers 13/35
38.2% 3-Point % 37.1%
17/19 Free Throws 20/22
89.5% Free Throw % 90.9%
60.0% True Shooting % 56.8%
40 Total Rebounds 55
6 Offensive 14
30 Defensive 37
26 Assists 30
2.36 Assist/TO Ratio 2.50
10 Turnovers 11
7 Steals 5
6 Blocks 5
16 Fouls 19
44 Points in Paint 46
23 Fast Break Pts 8
16 Points off TOs 19
4 Second Chance Pts 18
37 Bench Points 30
7 Largest Lead 20
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Collin Sexton
21 PTS · 0 REB · 3 AST · 17.6 MIN
+20.57
2
Brandon Miller
26 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 34.9 MIN
+19.33
3
Moussa Diabaté
12 PTS · 10 REB · 6 AST · 33.3 MIN
+19.05
4
Dylan Harper
20 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 23.2 MIN
+15.87
5
Julian Champagnie
13 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 28.9 MIN
+13.52
6
Devin Vassell
13 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 30.4 MIN
+13.33
7
Miles Bridges
14 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 31.5 MIN
+12.44
8
Victor Wembanyama
16 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 30.6 MIN
+11.37
9
Stephon Castle
16 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 35.0 MIN
+10.18
10
Ryan Kalkbrenner
6 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 14.3 MIN
+10.14
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 K. Knueppel REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 106–111
Q4 0:03 MISS D. Vassell 26' 3PT 106–111
Q4 0:05 V. Wembanyama REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 106–111
Q4 0:08 MISS D. Fox 3PT 106–111
Q4 0:10 B. Miller Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 106–111
Q4 0:10 B. Miller Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 106–110
Q4 0:10 S. Castle take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Miller 2 FT) 106–109
Q4 0:24 K. Knueppel REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 106–109
Q4 0:27 MISS V. Wembanyama 29' pullup 3PT 106–109
Q4 0:36 TEAM defensive REBOUND 106–109
Q4 0:37 MISS B. Miller 27' pullup 3PT 106–109
Q4 0:58 H. Barnes Free Throw 2 of 2 (11 PTS) 106–109
Q4 0:58 H. Barnes Free Throw 1 of 2 (10 PTS) 105–109
Q4 0:58 L. Ball shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Barnes 2 FT) 104–109
Q4 1:07 M. Bridges Free Throw 3 of 3 (14 PTS) 104–109

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 35.0m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Missing the mark from beyond the arc and struggling with defensive miscommunications dragged down his overall rating. He failed to find clean looks against tight closeouts, leading to empty possessions that fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to stretch the floor consistently bogged down the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 34.9m
26
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.3

Anchoring the perimeter defense with his massive length drove a high net rating, even as he required a massive volume of shots to get his points. He disrupted passing lanes and contested heavily on the outside, completely locking down his primary matchup. The sheer volume of his offensive load was perfectly balanced by his elite two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +9.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 33.3m
12
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.2

Elite hustle (+5.5) and dominant defensive anchoring fueled a massive positive swing. He controlled the paint on both ends, converting high-percentage looks while erasing mistakes on the backline. His relentless activity on the glass consistently generated second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.8
Defense -1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 31.9m
16
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.3

Tanking his overall impact, a disastrous lack of hustle (+0.2) and severe inefficiency plagued his minutes. He settled for difficult, off-balance looks and routinely failed to get back in transition, bleeding points on the other end. His casual approach to ball security and defense gave the opponent a clear advantage whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 31.5m
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Settling for a heavy volume of missed threes and displaying low hustle metrics cratered his net impact. He repeatedly opted for contested jumpers early in the shot clock rather than attacking the basket or moving the ball. This poor shot selection consistently bailed out the defense and stalled any momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.5

Compounding a miserable shooting night, he offered a near-total lack of defensive resistance and poor hustle. He was consistently late on closeouts and failed to provide his usual physical presence inside the paint. The combination of bricked open looks and sluggish rotations made him a massive negative during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.5

An absolute flamethrower from deep, his scoring gravity drove a sky-high box score impact that completely overwhelmed his lack of hustle. He broke the game open with a barrage of contested jumpers that demoralized the drop coverage. The sheer perfection of his perimeter stroke warped the defense and created wide-open lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 5/5 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 118.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Stellar defensive positioning and perfect execution of his role drove a highly efficient stint. He protected the rim without fouling and converted all his interior touches as a roll man. His vertical gravity opened up the perimeter for shooters while locking down the paint defensively.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -43.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Sion James 12.2m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.7

Logging limited action, his offensive invisibility and poor advanced box metrics led to a steep negative rating. He failed to make any meaningful rotations or hustle plays to justify his floor time. The offense effectively played 4-on-5, allowing the defense to aggressively trap the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 11.4m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

Getting repeatedly beaten off the dribble forced the defense into rotation and gave up easy looks, making him a liability on the floor. His negative defensive impact was compounded by a complete lack of offensive production. Hesitance to shoot allowed defenders to completely ignore him and aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 35.0m
16
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.1

Despite high-level hustle (+5.0) and strong facilitation, defensive lapses severely undercut his value. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack, bleeding points on the other end through constant blow-bys. The playmaking was ultimately negated by how easily opponents bypassed him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 32.1m
11
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.5

Poor perimeter shooting and overall offensive inefficiency dragged his impact into the red. Even with strong hustle and defensive engagement, his inability to convert drives into points stalled the half-court offense. Defenders sagging off him effectively clogged the driving lanes for the rest of the unit, forcing late-clock bailouts.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Dropping well below his usual scoring efficiency, he struggled to exert his typical offensive dominance. Opponents successfully forced him into contested midrange looks instead of high-value paint touches, resulting in empty possessions that fueled transition run-outs. While his rim protection and length still disrupted sets, the offensive struggles kept his net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 30.4m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.7

Impact was dragged down by poor perimeter efficiency and low hustle metrics (+0.4) that allowed opponents to dictate the tempo. His inability to find rhythm from beyond the arc stalled the offense during key half-court possessions, letting defenders pack the paint. A lack of secondary playmaking further limited his overall effectiveness despite holding up decently in isolation defense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Elite spot-up shooting provided crucial spacing that elevated his offensive impact. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns and maintained solid positional awareness to stay in the positive. His off-ball movement consistently punished late rotations and kept the floor wide open for drivers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Defensive liabilities allowed opponents to exploit him in isolation, erasing the value of his highly efficient shooting. He was frequently targeted on switches, bleeding points in the half-court whenever forced to slide his feet. The scoring bump was entirely overshadowed by his inability to anchor the weak-side defense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 23.2m
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

Surgical scoring efficiency drove a massive positive impact as he continually broke down the defense. He hunted mismatches effectively and converted high-percentage looks in the paint. His aggressive downhill drives set the tone for the second unit and forced multiple defensive collapses.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +16.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Luke Kornet 19.1m
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Failing to attempt a single shot rendered him a non-threat, allowing defenders to roam freely and double-team elsewhere. Although he provided decent rim deterrence and hustle in his minutes, playing 4-on-5 on offense was too costly. His hesitance to roll hard to the rim completely neutralized his vertical spacing and bogged down pick-and-roll sets.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.3%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Outstanding defensive activity and relentless hustle (+4.6) completely masked a dreadful shooting night. He made his mark by blowing up screens and securing loose balls that generated extra possessions. His sheer physical intensity off the bench disrupted the opponent's rhythm despite his own offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0