Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 191 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Johnson 3/12 -7.4
George Hard 3/10 -3.4
Coulibaly Open 3/9 -4.8
Riley 7/8 +6.2
Champagnie 5/8 +4.7
Watkins 6/8 +4.6
Cooper 3/8 -2.6
Vukcevic Hard 2/6 -0.5
Carrington Hard 1/6 -2.3
Williams 2/5 -1.9

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Okongwu 4/17 -10.4
Kuminga 9/12 +6.4
McCollum Hard 2/12 -8.1
Risacher 4/11 -5.6
Alexander-Walker Hard 4/10 +0.4
Vincent Hard 4/10 -1.1
Kispert Hard 4/8 +1.6
Landale 3/8 -3.0
Daniels Open 3/7 -2.7
Johnson 2/4 +0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
ATL
37/84 Field Goals 42/107
44.0% Field Goal % 39.3%
10/31 3-Pointers 12/50
32.3% 3-Point % 24.0%
14/17 Free Throws 23/26
82.4% Free Throw % 88.5%
53.6% True Shooting % 50.2%
49 Total Rebounds 71
2 Offensive 19
39 Defensive 42
23 Assists 33
1.15 Assist/TO Ratio 3.00
20 Turnovers 10
9 Steals 14
8 Blocks 2
19 Fouls 18
44 Points in Paint 58
20 Fast Break Pts 24
7 Points off TOs 23
6 Second Chance Pts 17
63 Bench Points 74
0 Largest Lead 38
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jonathan Kuminga
27 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 24.4 MIN
+30.5
2
Dyson Daniels
6 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 24.1 MIN
+16.88
3
Justin Champagnie
14 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 15.3 MIN
+16.88
4
Will Riley
18 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 29.1 MIN
+15.64
5
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
16 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 24.7 MIN
+13.54
6
Jamir Watkins
14 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 27.3 MIN
+12.34
7
Mouhamed Gueye
6 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 18.1 MIN
+12.33
8
Bilal Coulibaly
8 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 24.0 MIN
+11.42
9
Onyeka Okongwu
10 PTS · 10 REB · 7 AST · 22.9 MIN
+9.71
10
Jock Landale
6 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 20.8 MIN
+8.49
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 M. Gueye REBOUND (Off:2 Def:9) 98–119
Q4 0:02 MISS A. Williams 25' 3PT 98–119
Q4 0:16 ATL shot clock Team TURNOVER 98–119
Q4 0:37 M. Gueye REBOUND (Off:2 Def:8) 98–119
Q4 0:41 MISS S. Cooper Free Throw 2 of 2 98–119
Q4 0:41 S. Cooper Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS) 98–119
Q4 0:41 K. Wallace personal FOUL (2 PF) (Cooper 2 FT) 97–119
Q4 0:52 A. Williams REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 97–119
Q4 0:56 MISS K. Wallace 3PT 97–119
Q4 1:08 M. Gueye REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 97–119
Q4 1:11 MISS A. Williams 26' pullup 3PT 97–119
Q4 1:25 K. Wallace driving floating Jump Shot (3 PTS) 97–119
Q4 1:31 Z. Risacher REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 97–117
Q4 1:33 MISS S. Cooper 21' step back Shot 97–117
Q4 1:45 J. Watkins REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 97–117

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Jonathan Kuminga actually won the night
27 points, 7 boards, 4 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+24.3), hustle (+6.0), and shot-making (+4.7), pushing Net Impact to +27.8.
Scoring +24.3
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +6.0
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +4.7
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
hidden value
Justin Champagnie's value was hiding in plain sight
14 points, 2 boards, 0 assists undersells it. scoring (+11.8), shot-making (+4.1), and defense (+3.2) pushed his Net Impact to +10.8.
Scoring +11.8
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +4.1
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Defense +3.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Bub Carrington too hard
3 points, 10 boards, 7 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-4.7), pulling Net Impact down to -8.9.
Turnovers -4.7
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Shot-making +1.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Creation +1.2
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Zaccharie Risacher too hard
9 points, 9 boards, 3 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-4.7) and defense (-1.4), pulling Net Impact down to -5.4.
Turnovers -4.7
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.4
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.8
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.4

Exceptional hustle on loose balls and timely perimeter rotations anchored a strong two-way performance. Even with a slight dip in his usual scoring volume, his relentless energy in the passing lanes drove winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 24.1m
6
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.0

Smothering point-of-attack defense and elite connective passing drove a highly positive impact despite a sharp drop in his own scoring. He dictated the game's tempo by turning deflections into transition opportunities, proving his value doesn't rely on shot-making.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +47.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 22.9m
10
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.2

A disastrous finishing night around the basket threatened to derail his impact, as he repeatedly forced shots through heavy traffic. Fortunately, his robust rim protection and steady defensive anchoring managed to keep his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 29.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +12.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S CJ McCollum 22.7m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

An icy shooting slump from the perimeter completely tanked his offensive utility and overall impact score. His inability to punish drop coverage with his usually reliable jumper resulted in empty possessions that stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Johnson 5.6m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

An incredibly dense burst of defensive activity generated a massive positive impact in just a handful of minutes. Though his court time was severely truncated, his ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions left a lasting mark on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.4

Errant perimeter shooting severely damaged his net impact, as he failed to capitalize on open catch-and-shoot opportunities. While he showed decent activity on the glass, the sheer volume of missed deep looks dragged the offense down.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
27
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+27.8

Unstoppable downhill drives and pristine shot selection culminated in a masterclass offensive performance. Exploiting mismatches in the paint allowed him to triple his usual scoring output, generating a stratospheric net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 89.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +24.3
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Gabe Vincent 21.7m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Chucking from beyond the arc limited his efficiency, neutralizing the value of his unexpected scoring bump. A lack of meaningful defensive resistance further compounded the damage of his low-percentage perimeter attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jock Landale 20.8m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Gritty work in the trenches and elite hustle metrics offset a noticeable drop in his finishing efficiency. His willingness to set bruising screens and battle for positioning ensured he remained a net positive despite the scoring dip.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Defensive liabilities and a complete lack of hustle plays undermined an otherwise solid shooting night. Being repeatedly targeted on the perimeter negated the spacing benefits his jumper provided.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Imposing rim protection and disciplined verticality defined a highly impactful defensive stint. By avoiding cheap fouls and securing the defensive glass, he anchored the second unit and easily outperformed his usual metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +9.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Forcing low-percentage shots in a brief cameo quickly sank his overall rating. Without the defensive chops to make up for the wasted offensive possessions, his short stint was a clear net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -91.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 26.3m
3
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.9

Passing up open looks and a steep decline in scoring aggression neutralized his otherwise stellar defensive positioning. His reluctance to attack the rim created dead-end possessions, making his high defensive rating a mere footnote.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.0m
8
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite perimeter containment defined his night, generating a massive defensive impact score that kept his overall rating afloat. A noticeable dip in offensive aggression and poor finishing prevented a truly dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 23.9m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.4

Impact cratered due to a disastrous perimeter shooting display that consistently short-circuited the offense. Settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint left him with a severely negative rating.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -56.1
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.5

A severe regression in scoring punch completely overshadowed his usually reliable interior presence. While he remained highly engaged with excellent hustle metrics, empty offensive possessions dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kyshawn George 21.4m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.0

Forced looks from beyond the arc tanked his offensive value, resulting in a steep negative overall impact. Despite active rotations that boosted his hustle metrics, his inability to find a rhythm against set defenses proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Will Riley 29.1m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Flawless shot selection and clinical finishing in the paint drove a highly efficient offensive performance. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns allowed him to generate a massive positive impact, anchoring the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless energy on loose balls and decisive cuts to the basket fueled a massive offensive breakout. By converting high-percentage looks at the rim, he easily surpassed his usual production and secured a solid positive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Anthony Gill 24.4m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Passive offensive positioning severely limited his overall effectiveness, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. Even though his weak-side defensive rotations remained sharp, the lack of a scoring threat allowed opponents to sag off and clog the lane.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.8

Bleeding points at the point of attack defined a highly damaging stint on the floor. Without his usual playmaking rhythm to compensate for defensive lapses, his overall impact plummeted.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.8

Lethal spot-up shooting from the perimeter punished defensive rotations and skyrocketed his net impact in limited minutes. Maintaining his recent hot streak, he provided instant offensive gravity that completely opened up the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -58.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A complete lack of hustle plays and poor perimeter execution dragged down his brief rotation minutes. While he offered some resistance on the defensive end, settling for contested deep shots neutralized his value.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +87.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1