Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BKN lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
BKN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Riley 10/19 +3.3
Vukcevic 6/12 +0.2
Watkins 4/12 -5.3
Carrington Hard 4/10 +0.6
Cooper 5/8 +2.8
Champagnie 5/8 +1.7
Gill Open 3/8 -4.1
Gilbert 0/2 -2.2

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 8/16 +1.1
Wolf 7/11 +3.9
Sharpe Open 9/11 +3.6
Clowney Hard 5/10 +3.0
Saraf 4/10 -2.2
Dëmin 2/8 -5.0
Traore 6/7 +5.8
Powell 2/7 -3.1
Claxton Open 4/6 +0.4
Mann Open 3/5 -0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
BKN
37/79 Field Goals 50/91
46.8% Field Goal % 54.9%
11/30 3-Pointers 13/38
36.7% 3-Point % 34.2%
28/30 Free Throws 14/19
93.3% Free Throw % 73.7%
61.3% True Shooting % 63.9%
39 Total Rebounds 52
5 Offensive 13
25 Defensive 32
18 Assists 36
1.12 Assist/TO Ratio 2.77
15 Turnovers 13
6 Steals 8
8 Blocks 3
21 Fouls 22
48 Points in Paint 66
17 Fast Break Pts 11
18 Points off TOs 23
15 Second Chance Pts 17
27 Bench Points 56
2 Largest Lead 34
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Will Riley
27 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 45.2 MIN
+24.48
2
Day'Ron Sharpe
19 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 19.6 MIN
+21.74
3
Justin Champagnie
21 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 22.1 MIN
+21.1
4
Danny Wolf
16 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 19.6 MIN
+18.96
5
Michael Porter Jr.
23 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 30.5 MIN
+15.53
6
Noah Clowney
18 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.2 MIN
+13.58
7
Nolan Traore
15 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 23.6 MIN
+11.33
8
Ben Saraf
10 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 24.4 MIN
+11.18
9
Nic Claxton
11 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 28.4 MIN
+9.16
10
Sharife Cooper
14 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 28.7 MIN
+9.16
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 W. Riley cutting DUNK (27 PTS) (A. Gill 2 AST) 113–127
Q4 0:24 M. Porter Jr. 24' 3PT (23 PTS) (E. Dëmin 2 AST) 111–127
Q4 0:44 N. Claxton REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 111–124
Q4 0:47 E. Dëmin BLOCK (1 BLK) 111–124
Q4 0:47 MISS S. Cooper 6' fadeaway Shot - blocked 111–124
Q4 1:03 N. Clowney Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 111–124
Q4 1:03 TEAM offensive REBOUND 111–123
Q4 1:03 MISS N. Clowney Free Throw 1 of 2 111–123
Q4 1:03 W. Riley shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Clowney 2 FT) 111–123
Q4 1:22 N. Traore REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 111–123
Q4 1:25 MISS A. Gill Layup 111–123
Q4 1:46 S. Cooper REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 111–123
Q4 1:49 MISS E. Dëmin 3PT 111–123
Q4 2:10 S. Cooper 3PT (14 PTS) (W. Riley 2 AST) 111–123
Q4 2:18 W. Riley STEAL (3 STL) 108–123

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

BKN Brooklyn Nets
23
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.6

Heavy volume from beyond the arc yielded mixed results, but his sheer gravity opened up the floor for teammates. Solid positional rebounding and active closeouts (+3.1 Hustle) ensured his impact stayed positive despite the streaky deep ball. He consistently punished late rotations during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nic Claxton 28.4m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

A surprisingly negative overall impact stems from a lack of high-motor plays (+1.2 Hustle) and likely hidden turnover costs. Though he maintained his usual hyper-efficient interior finishing, he struggled to anchor the drop coverage against quick guards. The raw production masked a step slow in defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 27.2m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.9

Breaking out of a miserable four-game slump, his sudden perimeter explosion stretched the opposing frontcourt to its breaking point. The threat of his pick-and-pop jumper fundamentally altered the defensive geometry. While his rim protection was merely average (+1.9 Def), the offensive spacing he provided was invaluable.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 25.5m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.9

Forcing up bricked triples completely tanked his offensive value and fueled opponent transition opportunities. He managed to salvage some dignity on the other end by fighting over screens (+3.4 Def), but the shot selection was disastrous. The offense routinely bogged down when he initiated the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 23.6m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

A massive leap in shot quality cured his recent efficiency woes, resulting in near-perfect execution from the floor. Unfortunately, a porous defensive showing (-1.4 Def) gave back almost everything he generated on offense. Opposing wings blew past his initial containment all night, limiting his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Saraf 24.4m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.0

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+5.3 Def) single-handedly kept his impact in the green. He continues to struggle with finishing through contact, dragging down his offensive efficiency. His ability to navigate screens and blow up dribble hand-offs proved to be his defining contribution.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 22.5m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.2

Clanking open spot-up looks severely damaged the half-court spacing, leading to a negative overall rating. He provided excellent weak-side rim protection (+3.5 Def), but the offensive dead weight was too heavy to carry. Defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter during the second half.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.9

Absolute dominance in the painted area resulted in a staggering +16.7 net impact in under 20 minutes. He bullied opposing bigs for deep post position, converting nearly every look while anchoring a stout interior defense (+4.5 Def). His relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+3.4 Hustle) completely overwhelmed the second unit.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +66.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Danny Wolf 19.6m
16
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.6

Capitalizing on a massive surge in offensive confidence, he shredded drop coverages with a lethal mix of rolls and pops. His +11.1 impact was driven by pristine shot selection and an ability to punish late closeouts. He completely flipped the momentum of the game during a dominant second-quarter stint.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +58.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Terance Mann 18.7m
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.1

Low usage and an inability to generate secondary hustle stats kept him from making a meaningful dent in the game. While he converted his limited looks efficiently, he was too passive hunting his own offense. Solid defensive positioning (+2.9 Def) wasn't enough to overcome his offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +68.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
WAS Washington Wizards
S Jamir Watkins 45.2m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

A brutal -10.8 total impact reflects the steep cost of poor perimeter shot selection over a massive minute load. While his high-motor hustle plays (+4.6) and defensive engagement were bright spots, they couldn't offset the empty offensive possessions. The scoring bump was entirely volume-driven, severely damaging the team's half-court efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.2m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Will Riley 45.2m
27
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.2

Heavy minutes didn't drain his two-way effectiveness, as a stellar +6.5 defensive rating anchored his positive overall impact. He punished defensive rotations from the perimeter all night, knocking down high-leverage outside shots to stretch the floor. Despite carrying a massive offensive load, his consistent hustle (+3.1) kept the opposing wings out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.2m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.8

Elite shot selection continues to be his calling card, extending his streak of highly efficient shooting to three straight games. His massive +11.8 overall impact was driven by capitalizing on offensive mismatches and providing stout perimeter resistance (+5.1 Def). He maximized his brief floor time by refusing to force bad looks.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +11.4
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Bub Carrington 22.1m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

Marginal defensive resistance (+0.6) and a lack of secondary hustle stats dragged his overall impact deep into the red. Settling for heavily contested mid-range jumpers stalled the offensive flow during his shifts. He simply didn't generate enough high-quality looks or defensive stops to justify his usage rate.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Interior finishing buoyed his positive impact despite a cold night from beyond the arc. He found ways to contribute defensively (+3.0) when his outside shot wasn't falling, contesting effectively in the paint. Operating primarily as a pick-and-pop threat, his shot diet kept the defense honest even with the misses.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Highly efficient scoring bursts were completely undone by defensive liabilities at the point of attack (+0.3 Def). Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, erasing the value of his excellent shot selection. Even a strong showing in 50/50 balls (+3.1 Hustle) couldn't rescue a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.2

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his net impact to a team-worst -13.8. Refusing to look at the rim allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the passing lanes. He salvaged a shred of utility through gritty defensive rotations, but the offensive zeros were too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
Anthony Gill 27.6m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Snapping a five-game streak of elite efficiency, his perimeter misses severely capped his offensive ceiling. However, relentless activity on the glass and in passing lanes (+4.8 Hustle) kept his head just above water. He morphed into a pure energy big down the stretch to compensate for the broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0