Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball 7/20 -7.4
Miller Hard 5/19 -6.0
Knueppel Hard 8/15 +5.9
Bridges 10/14 +5.2
Diabaté Open 4/8 -2.5
Kalkbrenner Open 3/6 -2.4
Williams 4/4 +5.6
Green 3/4 +3.3
James Open 1/3 -0.7
Mann Hard 1/2 +1.1

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 10/18 +4.3
Alexander-Walker 3/15 -8.1
Daniels Open 5/13 -5.2
Okongwu 6/11 +3.4
Risacher 7/10 +6.8
McCollum Hard 5/8 +3.9
Kispert Hard 3/8 -0.2
Landale 2/3 +1.6
Newell 2/2 +2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
ATL
46/95 Field Goals 43/88
48.4% Field Goal % 48.9%
18/39 3-Pointers 18/37
46.2% 3-Point % 48.6%
16/16 Free Throws 15/17
100.0% Free Throw % 88.2%
61.7% True Shooting % 62.3%
56 Total Rebounds 40
16 Offensive 5
33 Defensive 25
31 Assists 30
1.94 Assist/TO Ratio 3.00
15 Turnovers 10
5 Steals 9
3 Blocks 6
16 Fouls 20
56 Points in Paint 46
9 Fast Break Pts 22
15 Points off TOs 13
15 Second Chance Pts 6
31 Bench Points 30
9 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Johnson
31 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 39.9 MIN
+29.16
2
Miles Bridges
26 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 34.4 MIN
+22.06
3
Kon Knueppel
23 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 35.8 MIN
+19.64
4
Zaccharie Risacher
18 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 23.5 MIN
+19.25
5
Moussa Diabaté
11 PTS · 15 REB · 2 AST · 32.2 MIN
+18.09
6
LaMelo Ball
19 PTS · 1 REB · 9 AST · 31.4 MIN
+13.23
7
Dyson Daniels
11 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 31.1 MIN
+12.73
8
Grant Williams
11 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 15.8 MIN
+11.65
9
CJ McCollum
12 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 28.3 MIN
+11.08
10
Onyeka Okongwu
16 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 30.9 MIN
+10.71
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 M. Bridges Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 126–119
Q4 0:06 M. Bridges Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 125–119
Q4 0:06 J. Johnson take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Bridges 2 FT) 124–119
Q4 0:11 J. Johnson bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 124–119
Q4 0:12 B. Miller Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 124–119
Q4 0:12 B. Miller Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 123–119
Q4 0:12 C. Kispert take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Miller 2 FT) 122–119
Q4 0:12 B. Miller REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 122–119
Q4 0:14 MISS N. Alexander-Walker 3PT 122–119
Q4 0:23 L. Ball Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 122–119
Q4 0:23 L. Ball Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 121–119
Q4 0:23 O. Okongwu take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Ball 2 FT) 120–119
Q4 0:26 J. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 120–119
Q4 0:26 J. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 (30 PTS) 120–118
Q4 0:26 B. Miller personal FOUL (4 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 120–117

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 39.9m
31
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+23.2

Dominated the physical matchups on both ends, utilizing his size to finish through contact and anchor the rebounding battle. Exceptional defensive versatility effectively neutralized the opponent's primary frontcourt actions all night.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +24.3
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-5.4

A catastrophic shooting night tanked his net impact, as clanking perimeter jumpers repeatedly killed offensive momentum. Despite generating massive hustle metrics through deflections and chasing down long rebounds, the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 31.1m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Smothering point-of-attack defense and relentless loose-ball recoveries completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm. Those extra possessions and defensive stops easily outweighed the drag from his inefficient finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 30.9m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Stretching the floor as a trail big opened up crucial driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. Strong rim-protection metrics kept his impact positive, though occasional lapses in pick-and-roll coverage prevented a higher overall score.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.6

Searing perimeter efficiency completely broke the opponent's defensive shell, forcing them into panicked closeouts. His elite two-way play was highlighted by sharp weak-side defensive rotations that repeatedly snuffed out driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
CJ McCollum 28.3m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Efficient scoring in isolation sets wasn't enough to counteract defensive bleeding during transition sequences. His inability to contain dribble penetration allowed the opposition to generate high-value looks, dragging his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.7

Defensive miscommunications and late closeouts allowed opposing shooters to feast during his minutes on the floor. Offensively, failing to capitalize on wide-open corner looks compounded the damage, resulting in a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Jock Landale 17.1m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Provided a brief spark with hard screens that freed up the guards, but struggled with foot speed in drop coverage. Opposing bigs exploited his lack of lateral quickness in the pick-and-roll, slightly tipping his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 8.1m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Maximized garbage-time minutes with flawless execution around the basket and active hands in the passing lanes. His disciplined verticality at the rim showcased an understanding of defensive spacing beyond his years.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 35.8m
23
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.1

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive offensive rating spike, spacing the floor effectively during half-court sets. His sharp defensive rotations and consistent hustle ensured his scoring surge translated directly to winning margins.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 35.3m
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.6

A brutal volume-shooting slump derailed his overall impact, as forced perimeter looks led to empty possessions. Despite commendable defensive effort and hustle plays to try and compensate, the sheer number of missed field goals severely handicapped the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 34.4m
26
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.1

Relentless downhill attacking created high-percentage looks at the rim, driving a dominant box score impact. By avoiding low-efficiency jumpers and punishing mismatches inside, he maximized his possessions and anchored the frontcourt's physical presence.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +22.9
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 32.2m
11
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.5

Controlled the interior with excellent rebounding positioning, repeatedly denying second-chance opportunities for the opposition. His defensive anchoring and disciplined shot selection around the basket provided a highly stable baseline for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +16.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 31.4m
19
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.4

Playmaking vision generated open looks for teammates, but his own erratic shot selection dragged down his overall efficiency. Settling for contested deep threes early in the shot clock neutralized the positive momentum created by his defensive activity.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 17.4m
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.4

Hesitancy to attack closeouts resulted in passive offensive possessions that stalled ball movement. Minimal defensive disruption and a lack of loose-ball recoveries prevented him from shifting the game's rhythm during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +58.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Flawless execution on spot-up attempts punished the defense for sagging off the perimeter. He operated as a perfect release valve in the half-court, maximizing every touch without forcing the action.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.9%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Struggled to establish deep post position, leading to rushed hook shots that failed to convert. A lack of rim-deterrence on the other end allowed opponents to finish comfortably in the paint, keeping his net rating in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 12.5m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Capitalized perfectly on limited touches by hitting timely catch-and-shoot opportunities to punish defensive rotations. High-energy bursts in a short stint provided a crucial momentum swing during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 10.3m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.8

Failed to generate meaningful dribble penetration, rendering his offensive shifts largely invisible. While he stayed attached to his man defensively, the inability to collapse the defense severely limited his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2