Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 199 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Bailey 9/26 -8.9
Collier 11/22 +0.6
Markkanen 6/12 +2.7
Sensabaugh Hard 6/11 +4.6
Mykhailiuk Hard 6/10 +3.9
Filipowski 5/9 +1.7
Williams Open 2/9 -7.2
Tshiebwe Open 2/2 +1.2

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 9/19 -2.9
Alexander-Walker 9/15 +0.9
Landale 10/14 +8.1
Daniels Open 5/12 -3.7
McCollum Hard 3/12 -6.4
Kispert 7/9 +5.6
Risacher 0/8 -8.7
Newell Open 4/7 -1.2
Gueye 1/2 -0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
ATL
47/101 Field Goals 48/98
46.5% Field Goal % 49.0%
12/30 3-Pointers 8/35
40.0% 3-Point % 22.9%
13/20 Free Throws 17/23
65.0% Free Throw % 73.9%
54.2% True Shooting % 56.0%
61 Total Rebounds 56
18 Offensive 19
31 Defensive 31
19 Assists 34
1.73 Assist/TO Ratio 3.40
8 Turnovers 10
7 Steals 3
4 Blocks 10
24 Fouls 18
58 Points in Paint 76
13 Fast Break Pts 13
13 Points off TOs 18
19 Second Chance Pts 13
36 Bench Points 39
12 Largest Lead 5
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jock Landale
26 PTS · 11 REB · 5 AST · 31.5 MIN
+31.38
2
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
23 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 33.7 MIN
+26.69
3
Isaiah Collier
25 PTS · 7 REB · 11 AST · 48.0 MIN
+23.76
4
Jalen Johnson
22 PTS · 16 REB · 15 AST · 38.6 MIN
+19.87
5
Lauri Markkanen
18 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 23.4 MIN
+15.89
6
Corey Kispert
20 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 24.6 MIN
+15.85
7
Ace Bailey
20 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 40.4 MIN
+14.57
8
Kyle Filipowski
15 PTS · 17 REB · 1 AST · 28.4 MIN
+13.49
9
Svi Mykhailiuk
14 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 22.7 MIN
+11.13
10
Asa Newell
9 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 16.5 MIN
+8.41
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 119–121
Q4 0:00 MISS A. Bailey 24' fadeaway 3PT 119–121
Q4 0:03 N. Alexander-Walker 18' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (23 PTS) 119–121
Q4 0:10 A. Bailey 25' 3PT pullup (20 PTS) (C. Williams 2 AST) 119–119
Q4 0:13 N. Alexander-Walker Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 116–119
Q4 0:13 N. Alexander-Walker Free Throw 1 of 2 (20 PTS) 116–118
Q4 0:13 C. Williams take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Alexander-Walker 2 FT) 116–117
Q4 0:21 UTA shot clock Team TURNOVER 116–117
Q4 0:21 TEAM offensive REBOUND 116–117
Q4 0:21 J. Johnson BLOCK (2 BLK) 116–117
Q4 0:21 MISS K. Filipowski 19' pullup Shot - blocked 116–117
Q4 0:30 I. Collier REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 116–117
Q4 0:34 MISS I. Collier turnaround Shot 116–117
Q4 0:46 J. Landale 3PT (26 PTS) (N. Alexander-Walker 5 AST) 116–117
Q4 0:59 UTA shot clock Team TURNOVER 116–114

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

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 38.6m
22
pts
16
reb
15
ast
Impact
+18.9

Operating as the primary offensive hub yielded massive production, but a string of errant passes into traffic severely capped his overall net rating. His relentless downhill attacks collapsed the defense to create open looks for teammates, though he settled for too many flat perimeter jumpers that bailed out his primary defender. The sheer volume of his creation kept his impact positive, even if inefficiency dulled the shine.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +20.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 34.6m
11
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Exceptional hustle metrics were completely undone by sloppy ball-handling in the half-court that triggered opponent fast breaks. He consistently disrupted passing lanes with his length, yet gave those possessions right back by driving into heavily congested areas. The resulting negative swing highlights how his offensive decision-making actively sabotaged his elite effort plays.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.1

Slicing through the defense with decisive straight-line drives generated highly efficient looks at the rim. He matched his offensive aggression with suffocating on-ball pressure, repeatedly blowing up dribble hand-offs and forcing the offense to reset. Avoiding the three-point line entirely to focus on his slashing game proved to be a masterstroke for his overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jock Landale 31.5m
26
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+25.2

Catching fire from the perimeter completely broke the opposing defensive shell, forcing their bigs out of the paint and opening up driving lanes for everyone else. He paired this unexpected floor-spacing explosion with disciplined verticality at the rim, deterring multiple drives without fouling. This two-way masterclass was the defining catalyst for the team's success during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +22.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +14.0
Defense +1.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-19.3

An absolute nightmare of a shooting performance cratered his value, as he forced contested looks early in the shot clock and missed every single one. While he stayed engaged on the defensive end with solid closeouts, his offensive futility allowed the opponent to completely ignore him and pack the paint. The resulting spacing issues derailed the offense whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring -6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
CJ McCollum 31.9m
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.6

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers short-circuited the offensive flow and led to a disastrous shooting night. Despite putting in admirable effort on defensive rotations and fighting through screens, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. The sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his overall impact deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
20
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Punishing late closeouts with decisive drives and sharp perimeter shooting created a massive offensive spark off the bench. He consistently found the soft spots in transition, converting high-percentage looks before the defense could set up. This scoring surge easily masked a few missed assignments in weak-side help defense.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -6.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 16.5m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Operating effectively in the dunker spot allowed him to convert dump-off passes into easy interior buckets. He provided a sturdy presence on the interior during his brief stint, setting hard screens and rolling with purpose to collapse the defense. This disciplined, low-mistake approach yielded a steady positive impact for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.2

A lack of spatial awareness on the offensive end frequently clogged the driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. While he held his ground adequately in post-up defensive situations, his inability to quickly process reads led to stagnant possessions. The resulting offensive friction pushed his short shift into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Isaiah Collier 48.0m
25
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+11.8

Playing every single minute resulted in noticeable fatigue down the stretch, leading to sloppy ball security that fueled opponent transition run-outs. He consistently broke down the primary point-of-attack defense to create rim pressure, but the resulting live-ball turnovers erased the value of his playmaking. The heavy offensive burden ultimately yielded a slightly negative net result due to those costly giveaways.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.0m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 40.4m
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

A brutal diet of contested mid-range pull-ups torpedoed his overall value despite heavy minutes. While he showcased active hands in the passing lanes to boost his defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged the team down. Forcing the issue against set defenses ultimately negated his high-energy hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 9/26 (34.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cody Williams 37.6m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Elite defensive rotations and relentless hustle plays kept him on the floor despite a broken jumper. His impact dipped into the red solely due to bricking wide-open perimeter looks, completely stalling the half-court offense. The stark drop in scoring aggression compared to his recent stretch made him a liability on that end.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 28.4m
15
pts
17
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.7

Dominating the glass on both ends allowed him to control the tempo and generate crucial second-chance possessions. Even with a slight dip in his recent scoring volume, his ability to stretch the floor from the center position pulled rim protectors out of the paint. A few missed rotations in drop coverage kept his defensive impact muted, capping his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +21.6
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Lauri Markkanen 23.4m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Lethal off-ball movement forced the defense into constant rotation, opening up high-value catch-and-shoot opportunities. He maximized his limited minutes by punishing mismatches on the perimeter and maintaining solid positional defense. This hyper-efficient floor-spacing directly fueled the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Getting hunted on switches completely unraveled his overall impact, turning him into a glaring target for isolation scorers. Even though he knocked down his perimeter looks at a highly efficient clip, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards bled points on the other end. The defensive bleeding far outweighed his reliable spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -5.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns allowed him to find a rhythm as a secondary cutter and spot-up threat. He provided a steadying presence on the wing, executing defensive schemes without gambling or getting out of position. This low-mistake, high-efficiency shift provided a reliable positive boost to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Struggling to navigate pick-and-roll coverages limited his floor time and kept his defensive impact in the red. He finished his rare touches around the basket cleanly, but couldn't generate the physical rebounding presence he usually relies on to swing games. The brief stint ultimately resulted in a marginal negative impact due to defensive immobility.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1