Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
WAS lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
WAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 12/20 +17.8
Knueppel 10/18 +6.2
Miller Hard 8/14 +8.2
Mann 2/8 -4.2
Green 4/6 +2.8
Williams Hard 1/4 -1.2
Hall Open 0/4 -4.5
Salaün 3/3 +4.6
Kalkbrenner Open 2/3 0.0
Connaughton 1/3 -1.5

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Riley Hard 4/11 -1.7
Hardy Hard 5/10 +3.9
Watkins Hard 5/10 +2.7
Johnson Hard 5/10 +1.3
Carrington Hard 2/10 -2.8
Coulibaly 6/9 +4.3
George Hard 4/9 +2.8
Williams Hard 3/5 +2.9
Gill Open 4/5 +1.7
Cooper Open 3/5 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
WAS
43/87 Field Goals 41/84
49.4% Field Goal % 48.8%
25/46 3-Pointers 18/42
54.3% 3-Point % 42.9%
18/25 Free Throws 12/17
72.0% Free Throw % 70.6%
65.8% True Shooting % 61.2%
60 Total Rebounds 40
16 Offensive 9
37 Defensive 28
27 Assists 24
2.25 Assist/TO Ratio 2.18
12 Turnovers 11
9 Steals 6
5 Blocks 5
17 Fouls 17
30 Points in Paint 32
14 Fast Break Pts 12
20 Points off TOs 8
25 Second Chance Pts 13
31 Bench Points 57
29 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
LaMelo Ball
37 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 27.5 MIN
+38.69
2
Kon Knueppel
28 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 28.4 MIN
+20.13
3
Bilal Coulibaly
17 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 17.2 MIN
+19.22
4
Josh Green
12 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 23.3 MIN
+16.77
5
Brandon Miller
22 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 26.1 MIN
+15.93
6
Ryan Kalkbrenner
6 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 15.2 MIN
+15.47
7
Kyshawn George
13 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 17.9 MIN
+13.2
8
Jaden Hardy
16 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 21.7 MIN
+12.82
9
Will Riley
11 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 30.6 MIN
+12.52
10
Jamir Watkins
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 16.5 MIN
+10.75
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 T. Mann STEAL (2 STL) 129–112
Q4 0:03 A. Williams bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 129–112
Q4 0:06 A. Williams REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 129–112
Q4 0:08 MISS T. Mann 19' step back Shot 129–112
Q4 0:31 S. Cooper 25' 3PT step back (9 PTS) 129–112
Q4 0:53 W. Riley REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 129–109
Q4 0:54 MISS S. James Free Throw 2 of 2 129–109
Q4 0:54 TEAM offensive REBOUND 129–109
Q4 0:54 MISS S. James Free Throw 1 of 2 129–109
Q4 0:54 S. Cooper shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (James 2 FT) 129–109
Q4 1:12 S. James REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 129–109
Q4 1:17 MISS W. Riley 27' 3PT 129–109
Q4 1:24 W. Riley STEAL (1 STL) 129–109
Q4 1:24 S. James bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 129–109
Q4 1:43 J. Watkins driving DUNK (13 PTS) (W. Riley 4 AST) 129–109

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 Anthony Gill 30.5m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.7

Despite hyper-efficient finishing around the basket and solid positional defense, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to poor transition tracking. He was repeatedly beaten down the floor on fast breaks, surrendering easy numbers-advantage layups. The half-court reliability couldn't mask the points bled in the open floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -48.4
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 30.1m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.3

A disastrous shooting night completely torpedoed his net impact, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, magnifying the damage of his empty offensive trips. Even adequate effort fighting over screens couldn't salvage a performance defined by offensive black-hole tendencies.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -44.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 19.3m
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Defensive lapses and poor closeout angles consistently compromised the team's defensive shell, leading to a negative overall impact. While he found moderate success scoring off the bounce, his tunnel vision stalled ball movement and led to stagnant possessions. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll switches to exploit his lateral hesitation.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -49.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyshawn George 17.9m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Exceptional length and anticipation in the passing lanes drove a massive +7.0 defensive impact score. He consistently turned defensive deflections into fast-break opportunities, maintaining a fluid offensive rhythm. Hitting timely corner threes kept the floor stretched during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -61.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Bilal Coulibaly 17.2m
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+7.5 Def) completely derailed the opponent's primary offensive actions. He paired this lockdown coverage with decisive, high-efficiency spot-up shooting, punishing defenders who dared to help off him. This two-way clinic was the defining catalyst for the team's perimeter success.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Despite solid shooting splits and active hands on defense, his impact tanked due to poor offensive initiation and spacing issues. He frequently held the ball too long, allowing the defense to set and forcing teammates into late-clock desperation shots. The underlying metrics suggest his minutes coincided with massive opponent runs in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 30.6m
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.9

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and loose ball recoveries (+6.9 Hustle) salvaged a highly inefficient shooting performance. He manufactured extra possessions through sheer willpower, offsetting the damage of his clunky perimeter attempts. His constant off-ball motion kept the defense scrambling even when his shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

High-motor playmaking and aggressive drives into the paint created a neutral overall impact despite defensive limitations. He generated consistent rim pressure, collapsing the defense to create kick-out opportunities for shooters. However, his size disadvantage on the other end allowed opponents to shoot over him, balancing out his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Hardy 21.7m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

A barrage of pull-up threes off high ball screens provided a vital scoring spark, driving his positive box impact. He showed improved patience in navigating drop coverage, taking what the defense gave him rather than forcing drives into traffic. Minor struggles containing dribble penetration kept his net score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Aggressive downhill attacks and confident perimeter shooting provided a noticeable offensive lift. He exploited mismatches on the wing, using a quick first step to compromise the defense and generate clean looks. A completely neutral defensive showing meant his value was entirely tied to his scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 28.4m
28
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.4

Elite perimeter shot-making drove a massive offensive rating spike, forcing the defense into constant panic rotations. His gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, while solid rotational awareness on the other end (+4.6 Def) ensured his scoring translated directly to winning basketball. The sheer volume of high-value triples masked any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +58.9
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +20.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 27.5m
37
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+38.2

An absolute masterclass in transition pacing and deep perimeter shooting shattered the opponent's defensive shell. Hitting heavily contested pull-up threes at an astronomical rate broke traditional defensive coverages, forcing double-teams that he easily picked apart. The sheer mathematical advantage of his three-point barrage single-handedly drove the massive +24.4 net impact.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 10/15 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +31.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +11.0
Hustle +5.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 26.1m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.6

A lethal combination of off-the-catch shooting and decisive closeout attacks generated a massive box score impact. However, occasional defensive miscommunications on the perimeter kept his overall net rating grounded compared to his offensive explosion. His ongoing streak of hyper-efficient scoring highlights a growing mastery of his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Grant Williams 25.6m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.3

Despite anchoring the defensive front (+9.2 Def) with physical post-ups and timely switches, offensive invisibility dragged down his overall impact. He consistently passed up open looks from the perimeter, clogging the spacing and allowing his primary defender to roam. The high hustle metrics couldn't compensate for the lack of floor-stretching gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +62.7
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Complete dominance in the drop-coverage scheme neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack, reflected in a stellar +7.1 defensive impact. He controlled the restricted area with verticality rather than chasing blocks, securing defensive rebounds to ignite transition opportunities. High-efficiency rim-running in limited minutes maximized his on-court value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Josh Green 23.3m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Timely baseline cuts and aggressive closeout attacks fueled a breakout offensive rhythm that perfectly complemented his standard defensive tenacity. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted opposing sets early in the shot clock, generating a strong +5.1 defensive score. Breaking out of a severe scoring slump provided a crucial secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 21.0m
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

A complete offensive zero whose hesitation on the perimeter allowed defenders to aggressively double the ball-handler. The lack of scoring gravity was compounded by poor navigation through off-ball screens, leading to a negative defensive impact. His minutes were defined by stagnant spacing and a failure to capitalize on defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring -3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Perfect shot selection and opportunistic weak-side spacing yielded a highly efficient, low-usage positive impact. He capitalized on every defensive rotation by knocking down open spot-up looks without forcing the issue. Active hands in the passing lanes contributed to a steady, mistake-free performance.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 20.5m
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Inefficient isolation attempts and forced jumpers off the dribble severely damaged his offensive rating. Even though he fought through screens admirably to generate a positive defensive score, the empty offensive possessions killed team momentum. The inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 16.8m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.4

Total inability to finish around the basket cratered his offensive value despite decent positional rebounding. Opposing bigs completely ignored him on the perimeter, packing the paint and stalling the team's half-court execution. While he battled hard on the interior (+2.7 Def), the offensive spacing issues were too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Marginal impact across the board as he struggled to find a rhythm in limited action. He was largely bypassed in the offensive flow, floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention. A few solid rotational closeouts kept him from being a complete liability, but he failed to move the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -89.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.9

Barely saw the floor but managed to drag down the net rating with a blown rotation and a forced interior shot. The game moved too fast during his brief stint, leaving him out of position in transition defense. Failed to establish any physicality in the paint before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1