Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 8/19 -5.4
Traore 4/14 -6.6
Dëmin 5/11 -0.4
Claxton Open 6/11 -1.2
Clowney Hard 3/8 -0.9
Sharpe Open 4/6 +0.1
Powell 2/5 -0.8
Agbaji Hard 2/4 +2.0
Wolf Hard 2/4 +0.5
Mann Hard 2/3 +2.9

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 11/22 -1.6
McCollum Hard 5/12 +0.9
Alexander-Walker Hard 4/12 -1.4
Landale Open 6/11 +1.6
Daniels 3/8 -2.3
Okongwu 5/7 +4.1
Risacher 3/7 -1.2
Kispert Open 4/5 +2.9
Vincent Hard 1/2 +0.8
Gueye Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
ATL
38/85 Field Goals 42/87
44.7% Field Goal % 48.3%
12/34 3-Pointers 13/33
35.3% 3-Point % 39.4%
16/22 Free Throws 18/21
72.7% Free Throw % 85.7%
54.9% True Shooting % 59.7%
42 Total Rebounds 60
9 Offensive 15
25 Defensive 37
29 Assists 28
2.23 Assist/TO Ratio 1.65
13 Turnovers 15
9 Steals 10
4 Blocks 4
18 Fouls 16
48 Points in Paint 48
5 Fast Break Pts 21
26 Points off TOs 12
12 Second Chance Pts 10
35 Bench Points 36
11 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jock Landale
17 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 16.1 MIN
+18.99
2
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
17 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 35.2 MIN
+17.92
3
Dyson Daniels
7 PTS · 10 REB · 8 AST · 33.4 MIN
+17.19
4
Nic Claxton
15 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 30.6 MIN
+13.92
5
Michael Porter Jr.
18 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 34.6 MIN
+13.52
6
Day'Ron Sharpe
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 17.4 MIN
+13.47
7
Noah Clowney
12 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 31.1 MIN
+12.82
8
Onyeka Okongwu
13 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 31.9 MIN
+12.72
9
Jalen Johnson
26 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 37.9 MIN
+12.02
10
CJ McCollum
16 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 31.9 MIN
+11.93
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 C. McCollum REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 104–115
Q4 0:13 MISS N. Claxton 26' 3PT 104–115
Q4 0:32 J. Johnson running DUNK (26 PTS) (C. McCollum 4 AST) 104–115
Q4 0:38 D. Daniels STEAL (3 STL) 104–113
Q4 0:38 N. Traore bad pass TURNOVER (5 TO) 104–113
Q4 0:47 J. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 104–113
Q4 0:47 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–112
Q4 0:47 MISS J. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 104–112
Q4 0:47 N. Clowney personal FOUL (2 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 104–112
Q4 0:49 J. Johnson REBOUND (Off:1 Def:11) 104–112
Q4 0:52 MISS N. Traore driving Layup 104–112
Q4 0:58 N. Alexander-Walker Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 104–112
Q4 0:58 N. Alexander-Walker Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 104–111
Q4 0:58 M. Porter Jr. personal FOUL (3 PF) (Alexander-Walker 2 FT) 104–110
Q4 1:10 D. Daniels REBOUND (Off:3 Def:7) 104–110

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 37.9m
26
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.3

A high volume of empty possessions and forced attacks into traffic ultimately dragged down his overall rating. While he carried a heavy offensive load, the missed perimeter shots and likely live-ball turnovers fueled opponent fast breaks. His scoring output masked the defensive compromises made to keep him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +17.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +14.3
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.0

Tenacious on-ball pressure and disruptive defensive rotations completely overshadowed a highly inefficient shooting night. He generated essential stops by fighting through screens and contesting late in the shot clock. Even with the missed jumpers piling up, his playmaking and defensive grit kept the team afloat.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 33.4m
7
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.2

Elite rebounding from the guard position and suffocating perimeter defense drove a highly impactful performance despite a quiet scoring night. He acted as the primary connective tissue for the offense, constantly advancing the ball and finding cutters. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs completely disrupted the opponent's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +11.7
Defense +4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 31.9m
13
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Foul trouble or poor pick-and-roll coverage likely neutralized his highly efficient interior finishing. He struggled to drop effectively against quick guards, surrendering too many uncontested floaters. Despite cleaning up the glass, his inability to anchor the paint consistently resulted in a net-negative showing.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +11.1
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 31.9m
16
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.1

Defensive metrics look solid, but his overall impact hovered around neutral due to stalled offensive sets and forced isolation plays. He settled for tough, contested looks rather than keeping the ball moving against a set defense. The occasional defensive lapse in transition offset the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +9.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

A lack of physicality and minimal off-ball engagement resulted in a severely negative stint on the floor. He was easily bullied off his spots defensively and failed to create any meaningful separation on offense. The game simply moved too fast for him, leading to blown assignments and empty trips.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 16.1m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

An unexpected barrage of perimeter shooting completely broke the opposing defense's coverage principles. He exploited drop coverages flawlessly, dragging rim protectors away from the basket and opening up driving lanes for teammates. This scoring explosion, combined with sturdy post defense, resulted in a massive momentum shift.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Lethal off-ball cutting and decisive spot-up shooting provided a quick, efficient offensive spark. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find easy looks at the rim. However, a lack of rebounding and secondary playmaking kept his overall influence relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -72.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 11.1m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Steady, low-mistake basketball defined his brief appearance, providing just enough defensive resistance to keep his head above water. He focused primarily on initiating the offense and avoiding risky passes. While not a dynamic threat, his ability to execute the scheme without turning the ball over offered a stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -30.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

Complete offensive invisibility prevented him from making a positive mark on the game. While he competed adequately on the defensive end, his inability to threaten the rim allowed defenders to completely ignore him. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nolan Traore 34.7m
11
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.7

A heavy volume of forced, low-percentage shots completely cratered his overall rating. Even though he competed hard defensively and chased loose balls, the offensive damage from stalled possessions and likely live-ball turnovers was too much to overcome. His shot selection routinely bailed out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
18
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.9

A heavy volume of missed perimeter jumpers dragged down his overall efficiency and tanked his net impact. While he found ways to contribute as a connective passer, the sheer number of empty possessions stalled the offense. His inability to stretch the floor consistently allowed the defense to collapse on drives.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +7.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 31.1m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Defensive versatility and high-motor rotations completely defined his positive impact, anchoring the frontcourt despite an inconsistent shooting night. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by finding soft spots in the zone, but it was his rim deterrence that kept his overall value in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 30.6m
15
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.0

Offensive execution buoyed his value as he consistently capitalized on pick-and-roll mismatches to exceed his usual scoring output. However, his overall impact flattened out due to a lack of elite rim protection and secondary rim-running. He gave back a chunk of his offensive gains by struggling to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Egor Dëmin 28.0m
13
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Relentless off-ball movement and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly productive two-way performance. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort, masking a few forced mid-range attempts. His defensive connectivity proved just as valuable as his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Danny Wolf 18.4m
5
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.6

Passive offensive tendencies limited his overall influence, as he frequently passed up open looks to reset the offense. While his positional defense and connective passing kept the second unit stable, he failed to apply any real pressure on the rim. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Terance Mann 17.4m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his primary assignment severely undercut an otherwise efficient shooting night. He struggled to navigate screens, forcing the defense into disadvantageous rotations. The lack of overall aggression left him floating on the perimeter too often.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Absolute dominance in the paint during his short stint on the floor fueled a massive positive swing. He controlled the glass and altered shots at the rim, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities. His physical screen-setting and interior presence completely shifted the momentum of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Ochai Agbaji 14.2m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Timely perimeter shooting and disciplined closeouts generated a modest but positive overall impact. He broke out of a recent slump by taking only high-value catch-and-shoot opportunities within the flow of the offense. His commitment to staying attached to shooters off the ball provided quiet, essential stability.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Drake Powell 13.7m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Poor point-of-attack defense negated the value of his opportunistic scoring bursts. He was frequently targeted in isolation mismatches, bleeding points on one end while struggling to find a rhythm on the other. A few ill-advised closeouts allowed easy blow-bys that hurt the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -70.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0