Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 169 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Murphy III 10/20 +1.1
Williamson 5/13 -4.3
Bey 2/12 -7.9
Jones Hard 4/9 +2.5
Queen 5/9 +1.2
Fears 3/7 0.0
Alvarado Hard 1/7 -3.7
Matković Hard 1/5 -3.4
Missi Open 2/2 +1.2

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller Hard 7/21 -5.0
Ball Hard 8/20 -0.2
Knueppel Hard 4/13 -1.7
Bridges 3/11 -5.3
Williams Hard 5/7 +4.9
Kalkbrenner Open 3/5 -0.2
Sexton Hard 2/4 +1.1
James 1/2 -0.3
Diabaté Open 1/2 -0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
CHA
33/84 Field Goals 34/85
39.3% Field Goal % 40.0%
11/34 3-Pointers 12/50
32.4% 3-Point % 24.0%
18/25 Free Throws 22/27
72.0% Free Throw % 81.5%
50.0% True Shooting % 52.6%
46 Total Rebounds 70
5 Offensive 13
29 Defensive 46
23 Assists 16
2.88 Assist/TO Ratio 0.94
7 Turnovers 16
9 Steals 3
4 Blocks 3
23 Fouls 19
42 Points in Paint 32
16 Fast Break Pts 10
22 Points off TOs 11
2 Second Chance Pts 16
18 Bench Points 34
22 Largest Lead 10
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Trey Murphy III
27 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 37.3 MIN
+18.66
2
LaMelo Ball
24 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 30.0 MIN
+17.7
3
Grant Williams
16 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 19.6 MIN
+16.89
4
Derik Queen
16 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 31.0 MIN
+16.57
5
Herbert Jones
12 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 36.1 MIN
+12.07
6
Jeremiah Fears
9 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 15.3 MIN
+9.39
7
Ryan Kalkbrenner
10 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 17.8 MIN
+8.47
8
Brandon Miller
16 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 36.7 MIN
+6.6
9
Moussa Diabaté
2 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 28.3 MIN
+6.09
10
Zion Williamson
14 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 30.8 MIN
+5.97
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 T. Murphy III driving DUNK (27 PTS) 95–102
Q4 0:17 K. Knueppel Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 93–102
Q4 0:17 K. Knueppel Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 93–101
Q4 0:17 S. Bey take personal FOUL (1 PF) (Knueppel 2 FT) 93–100
Q4 0:24 H. Jones 26' 3PT (12 PTS) (T. Murphy III 4 AST) 93–100
Q4 0:37 B. Miller lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 90–100
Q4 1:00 B. Miller REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 90–100
Q4 1:02 MISS J. Alvarado 26' 3PT 90–100
Q4 1:15 L. Ball Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 90–100
Q4 1:15 L. Ball Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 90–99
Q4 1:15 Z. Williamson personal FOUL (4 PF) (Ball 2 FT) 90–98
Q4 1:31 K. Knueppel REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 90–98
Q4 1:33 MISS Z. Williamson turnaround Hook 90–98
Q4 1:34 Z. Williamson REBOUND (Off:3 Def:8) 90–98
Q4 1:36 MISS H. Jones 26' running 3PT 90–98

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 Brandon Miller 36.7m
16
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

An excessive diet of clanked three-pointers completely eroded the value of his high-effort defensive rotations. He repeatedly forced the issue against set defenses, snapping a streak of efficient scoring with poor shot selection. The sheer number of empty possessions he generated ultimately outweighed his positive hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +8.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 35.6m
17
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

An over-reliance on contested perimeter bombs severely damaged offensive efficiency and dragged his total impact into the red. He settled for deep, early-clock looks rather than attacking closeouts, bailing out the defense repeatedly. This one-dimensional shot profile overshadowed otherwise solid positional defending.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +8.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 30.6m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Forced isolation drives into heavy traffic resulted in a disastrous offensive showing that torpedoed his net impact. He consistently disrupted the offensive flow by halting ball movement to take low-percentage, contested mid-range fadeaways. This drastic departure from his normally efficient interior finishing created constant transition chances for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 30.0m
24
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.0

Exceptional disruption at the point of attack drove a highly positive overall rating despite a wildly erratic shooting night. He compensated for chucking a massive number of errant triples by consistently generating live-ball turnovers and pushing the pace. His ability to dictate the game's tempo masked the glaring inefficiency of his perimeter shot selection.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 3/14 (21.4%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 28.3m
2
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Extreme offensive passivity limited his overall effectiveness despite providing sturdy interior resistance. He vanished entirely as a roll man, failing to exploit defensive gaps and breaking his streak of highly efficient finishing. This reluctance to demand the ball allowed opposing bigs to cheat off him and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 2.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.6

Clinical execution as a floor-spacer and punishing physical screens generated a massive team-high impact. He ruthlessly exploited mismatches in the post and knocked down timely trail threes, shattering his recent offensive slump. His relentless physicality on box-outs set a bruising tone that the opposition simply could not match.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 19.1m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Complete invisibility on the offensive end allowed defenders to aggressively double-team his teammates, sinking his overall impact. He floated around the perimeter without cutting or screening with purpose, stalling half-court sets. This lack of gravity and assertiveness rendered his adequate defensive positioning functionally useless.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Imposing rim protection and disciplined verticality frustrated opposing drivers and fueled a massive positive swing. He capitalized on deep post position to convert high-leverage looks, continuing his trend of hyper-efficient finishing. A dominant second-quarter stretch of altered shots completely derailed the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +7.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

An uncharacteristically passive approach severely capped his offensive ceiling and dragged his net impact into the negative. He struggled to find his rhythm in limited action, failing to apply his usual downhill rim pressure against secondary defenders. Without his typical aggressive slashing, the second unit's offense stagnated noticeably.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 10.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

A complete failure to engage offensively or defensively resulted in a steep negative rating during his short stint. He was repeatedly blown by on the perimeter, forcing teammates into scramble situations that yielded easy buckets. By refusing to even look at the rim, he allowed his primary matchup to play free safety.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.3m
27
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.5

Lethal off-ball movement and decisive catch-and-shoot execution headlined a stellar offensive rating. He consistently exploited defensive breakdowns along the perimeter, punishing late rotations with immediate triggers. A steady diet of clean looks masked average hustle metrics and cemented his role as the primary offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +19.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 36.1m
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

Smothering point-of-attack defense and timely weak-side help generated a steady stream of positive momentum. His impact was further amplified by punishing sagging defenders with confident corner triples, breaking out of a recent shooting rut. He completely neutralized his primary assignment during a pivotal third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Saddiq Bey 35.0m
8
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter completely tanked his overall impact despite respectable defensive rotations. The massive drop-off from his usual scoring rhythm manifested in forced, late-clock attempts that fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to punish closeouts neutralized any spacing value he typically provides.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 31.0m
16
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.1

Elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass drove a massive positive swing when he was on the floor. He capitalized on a favorable frontcourt matchup by converting high-percentage dump-offs rather than forcing post-ups. This two-way dominance marked a stark, highly efficient departure from his recent shooting slumps.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 30.9m
14
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.4

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim dragged his usually dominant offensive impact down to neutral. He compensated by anchoring the interior defense and generating crucial deflections in the paint. A frustrating pattern of contested layups rolling off the iron prevented him from taking over the game.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +13.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.5

A barrage of clanked perimeter jumpers thoroughly derailed the offense and led to a brutal negative impact. While he provided his trademark peskiness and loose-ball pursuit, it wasn't nearly enough to offset the wasted possessions. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, bogging down the entire half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Active hands in passing lanes and disciplined on-ball pressure fueled a highly productive defensive stint. Though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, he avoided forcing the issue against set defenses. A crucial sequence of back-to-back deflections highlighted his ability to impact the game without dominating the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Relentless rim contests and high-energy closeouts salvaged his net rating despite a frigid offensive outing. He abandoned his usually reliable interior game for ill-advised perimeter jumpers, dragging down his offensive value. However, his sheer physical presence in drop coverage disrupted multiple opponent drives.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Yves Missi 10.6m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Defensive lapses in pick-and-roll coverage quickly negated any value from his perfect shooting clip. He struggled to anchor the paint against physical drivers, resulting in a negative overall rating during his brief stint. Opposing guards consistently targeted his slow lateral adjustments on switches.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1