Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
WAS lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
WAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 7/16 +0.5
Towns 7/16 -2.7
Anunoby Hard 6/11 +3.7
Bridges 8/10 +7.3
Shamet Hard 5/8 +6.2
Clarkson 5/8 +2.8
Kolek Hard 1/7 -3.3
Hukporti 5/6 +4.0
Hart Hard 1/3 -0.1
Diawara 2/2 +2.5

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Middleton Hard 5/11 +1.8
Riley Hard 5/11 +1.5
Sarr 4/11 -2.2
Carrington Hard 4/10 +2.3
Johnson 4/8 +0.5
Cooper 4/8 +0.4
George Hard 3/8 -1.1
Bagley III 4/7 +0.3
Champagnie Hard 1/7 -4.8
Coulibaly Hard 1/4 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
WAS
47/90 Field Goals 35/86
52.2% Field Goal % 40.7%
17/37 3-Pointers 11/31
45.9% 3-Point % 35.5%
21/27 Free Throws 20/32
77.8% Free Throw % 62.5%
64.8% True Shooting % 50.5%
55 Total Rebounds 57
9 Offensive 10
41 Defensive 32
34 Assists 19
3.78 Assist/TO Ratio 1.46
9 Turnovers 13
6 Steals 6
5 Blocks 3
22 Fouls 22
54 Points in Paint 40
18 Fast Break Pts 12
16 Points off TOs 8
9 Second Chance Pts 21
46 Bench Points 53
41 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Mikal Bridges
23 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 25.6 MIN
+24.53
2
Karl-Anthony Towns
19 PTS · 15 REB · 3 AST · 26.4 MIN
+19.5
3
Jalen Brunson
21 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 31.2 MIN
+17.89
4
OG Anunoby
19 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 27.1 MIN
+15.76
5
AJ Johnson
14 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 23.6 MIN
+12.36
6
Landry Shamet
14 PTS · 0 REB · 1 AST · 21.0 MIN
+11.97
7
Will Riley
17 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 25.3 MIN
+9.64
8
Ariel Hukporti
12 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 21.6 MIN
+9.44
9
Marvin Bagley III
11 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 15.8 MIN
+9.18
10
Josh Hart
4 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 21.8 MIN
+6.85
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:16 A. Johnson 33' 3PT (14 PTS) (S. Labissiere 1 AST) 132–101
Q4 0:17 S. Labissiere REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 132–98
Q4 0:20 MISS W. Riley 13' pullup Shot 132–98
Q4 0:29 W. Riley REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 132–98
Q4 0:33 MISS D. Jones 30' running pullup 3PT 132–98
Q4 0:37 T. Kolek REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 132–98
Q4 0:40 MISS A. Johnson running Layup 132–98
Q4 0:44 A. Gill STEAL (2 STL) 132–98
Q4 0:44 A. Hukporti lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 132–98
Q4 0:58 W. Riley Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 132–98
Q4 0:58 W. Riley Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 132–97
Q4 0:58 D. Jones personal FOUL (2 PF) (Riley 2 FT) 132–96
Q4 1:04 TEAM offensive REBOUND 132–96
Q4 1:05 MISS S. Cooper 3PT 132–96
Q4 1:20 J. Clarkson cutting Layup (12 PTS) (A. Hukporti 1 AST) 132–96

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

WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 26.0m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

High-energy closeouts and active hands generated solid hustle metrics, but reckless decision-making with the ball wiped out that value. He repeatedly drove into crowded paint areas, resulting in deflections that ignited opponent fast breaks. The defensive effort was commendable, yet his offensive erraticism ultimately tipped the scales into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -57.3
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Alex Sarr 24.5m
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite rim deterrence and multiple second-effort challenges defined his defensive presence inside. However, a tendency to settle for contested mid-range jumpers rather than rolling hard to the basket capped his overall effectiveness. His motor never stopped running, which kept his impact slightly above water despite the inefficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -57.8
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 24.5m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Poor shot selection and a string of ill-advised, early-clock pull-ups handed momentum straight to the opposition. He struggled to stay in front of his man defensively, offering little resistance at the point of attack. The raw scoring output was heavily outweighed by the structural damage his decision-making caused to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.4m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Complete offensive passivity cratered his rating, as he routinely deferred to teammates even when presented with driving lanes. While his length disrupted several passing angles on defense, his refusal to engage on the other end effectively forced his team to play four-on-five. The stark drop in aggression from recent games stalled the entire offensive system.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.4m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Defensive sluggishness completely undermined a resurgent scoring night. He was consistently late navigating through off-ball screens, surrendering multiple open looks to perimeter shooters. The offensive rhythm he found in isolation sets couldn't mask how often he was exploited on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -66.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 25.3m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

A balanced, methodical approach to attacking closeouts kept the offense humming during his shifts. He gave back some of his offensive value by getting caught ball-watching on backdoor cuts. Ultimately, his ability to generate his own shot stabilized the second unit just enough to break even.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
AJ Johnson 23.6m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

An unexpected burst of perimeter confidence completely caught the defense off guard. He decisively attacked shifting zones, finding the seams for timely floaters that kept the chains moving. This sudden offensive awakening forced adjustments that opened up the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.5

A sudden inability to finish at the rim plagued his performance, snapping a recent streak of high-efficiency outings. He forced several contested looks in traffic rather than kicking out to open shooters, killing multiple possessions. Even with active hands on the glass, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his impact score into the basement.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring -3.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Over-dribbling in the half-court frequently bogged down the offensive flow and led to late-clock desperation heaves. Despite showing great lateral quickness to stay in front of his assignment, his risky passes were easily picked off by lurking help defenders. The dynamic flashes were ultimately undone by a lack of ball security.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Dominating the interior with quick second jumps, he punished the opposition for failing to secure defensive rebounds. His defensive rating spiked due to excellent vertical contests that forced misses without drawing fouls. He maximized a short stint by playing with a level of physicality that the opposing frontcourt simply couldn't match.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Floating aimlessly around the perimeter, he failed to leverage his size to create any meaningful advantages. He offered minimal resistance in the paint, allowing smaller guards to finish through him without fear of a contest. The lack of physical engagement rendered his brief time on the court largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Flawless defensive rotations and vocal leadership anchored the backline during a critical short stint. He completely sacrificed his own offense to set bone-crushing screens that freed up the primary ball-handlers. His value was entirely derived from doing the dirty work that doesn't show up in a traditional box score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 31.2m
21
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.4

Relentless off-ball movement and sheer grit salvaged a rough perimeter shooting night. His elite hustle rating was earned through diving for loose balls and keeping critical offensive possessions alive in traffic. By constantly probing the paint and collapsing the defense, he dictated the tempo despite the jumper not falling.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +47.1
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 27.1m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Elite perimeter containment anchored his positive rating, completely erasing his primary assignment during a crucial third-quarter stretch. The spacing he provided by knocking down timely corner jumpers forced the defense into impossible rotation choices. He maximized his touches without disrupting the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+26.6

Dominant interior positioning defined this outing, with his massive defensive rating stemming from verticality at the rim rather than blocked shots. Even with his perimeter jumper failing to connect at its usual clip, his sheer gravitational pull inside created wide-open driving lanes for the guards. He consistently sealed his man early in transition to generate deep post catches.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +53.2
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +18.1
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 25.6m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.3

Flawless shot selection fueled a massive surge in offensive efficiency, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers. He exploited mismatches mercilessly during a second-quarter run that broke the game open. The sheer lack of wasted possessions or forced attempts drove his sky-high overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +21.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Josh Hart 21.8m
4
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.8

A drastic drop in offensive aggression hollowed out his overall value, as he routinely passed up open looks in the half-court. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. His reluctance to attack closeouts ultimately stalled several key possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +70.5
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Hard rolls to the rim and excellent hands in traffic resulted in a highly efficient finishing display. He anchored the backup unit by consistently walling off the paint and deterring guard penetration. This unexpected offensive surge was built entirely on converting high-percentage dump-offs and putbacks.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.5
Defense -4.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Tunnel vision on offense and blown assignments on the other end dragged his overall rating into the red. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, easily turning the corner to collapse the defense. The isolated scoring bursts simply couldn't cover the cost of his defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, he found soft spots in the zone to deliver a much-needed perimeter spark. His value was entirely tied to floor spacing, as he offered virtually zero resistance on the defensive end. A quick-trigger release on flare screens kept the opposing second unit scrambling.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +55.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 20.9m
3
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-15.9

A disastrous string of forced shots and disrupted timing derailed the offensive flow whenever he initiated the sets. His inability to finish through contact allowed the defense to play passing lanes aggressively. While he competed hard at the point of attack, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved fatal to his impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Operating strictly as a connector, he blended into the background during his short stint on the floor. He supplied adequate rotational defense but lacked the assertiveness to make the opponent pay for ignoring him offensively. A failure to look at the rim allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team others.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

Lethargic rim runs and a failure to secure defensive rebounding position severely hurt the second unit's momentum. He was consistently a step slow on drop coverage, yielding uncontested floaters in the lane. Without any hustle plays to offset his offensive invisibility, his minutes were a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Making the most of a brief cameo, he injected immediate energy by decisively attacking a closeout on his first touch. His impact was purely situational, providing a quick scoring punch before the rotation shifted. He didn't log enough floor time to register defensively, but his offensive decisiveness stood out.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0