Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHI lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
CHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 177 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller Hard 9/16 +7.1
Ball Hard 6/16 +1.0
Knueppel 7/12 +4.0
Bridges Hard 6/11 +5.0
White Hard 4/9 +1.0
Connaughton Hard 2/7 -2.6
Green Hard 4/6 +4.8
Williams Hard 3/5 +2.3
Mann 3/5 +1.9
Diabaté Open 4/4 +2.4

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Buzelis 13/19 +10.8
Giddey 3/11 -5.8
Sexton Hard 4/9 +0.7
Dillingham 2/9 -5.3
Yabusele Hard 3/8 +0.4
Jones 1/7 -6.0
Williams Hard 4/6 +5.1
Okoro Hard 1/6 -3.2
Richards Open 2/5 -2.5
Miller 2/2 +2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
CHI
49/95 Field Goals 35/82
51.6% Field Goal % 42.7%
25/57 3-Pointers 16/40
43.9% 3-Point % 40.0%
8/9 Free Throws 13/15
88.9% Free Throw % 86.7%
66.2% True Shooting % 55.9%
56 Total Rebounds 40
14 Offensive 9
32 Defensive 24
31 Assists 18
1.82 Assist/TO Ratio 0.86
16 Turnovers 19
13 Steals 9
8 Blocks 1
14 Fouls 12
42 Points in Paint 36
26 Fast Break Pts 14
29 Points off TOs 13
23 Second Chance Pts 10
46 Bench Points 30
38 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Matas Buzelis
32 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 33.0 MIN
+27.81
2
Moussa Diabaté
9 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 30.6 MIN
+24.34
3
Kon Knueppel
21 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 22.5 MIN
+22.17
4
Miles Bridges
16 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 22.3 MIN
+17.47
5
Brandon Miller
23 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 25.4 MIN
+13.42
6
Guerschon Yabusele
11 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 26.6 MIN
+11.5
7
Tre Mann
7 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 7.8 MIN
+10.24
8
Josh Green
11 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 16.8 MIN
+9.68
9
Grant Williams
11 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 19.3 MIN
+8.97
10
LaMelo Ball
16 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 23.2 MIN
+7.99
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 CHA shot clock Team TURNOVER 131–99
Q4 0:33 L. Miller driving finger roll Layup (5 PTS) (C. Sexton 1 AST) 131–99
Q4 0:40 T. Mann running finger roll Layup (7 PTS) 131–97
Q4 0:41 T. Mann STEAL (1 STL) 129–97
Q4 0:41 L. Miller bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 129–97
Q4 0:45 L. Miller REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 129–97
Q4 0:47 MISS X. Tillman 24' pullup 3PT 129–97
Q4 1:10 L. Miller 25' 3PT (3 PTS) (R. Dillingham 5 AST) 129–97
Q4 1:18 T. Mann 26' 3PT pullup (5 PTS) 129–94
Q4 1:34 T. Mann REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 126–94
Q4 1:36 MISS I. Okoro 24' pullup 3PT 126–94
Q4 1:47 X. Tillman putback Layup (2 PTS) 126–94
Q4 1:47 X. Tillman REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 124–94
Q4 1:50 MISS P. Connaughton 3PT 124–94
Q4 2:12 P. Connaughton REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 124–94

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

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 33.0m
32
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+27.7

An absolute masterclass in shot creation and perimeter execution drove this dominant performance. He ruthlessly exploited defensive mismatches, pouring in highly efficient offense from all three levels. This explosive scoring outburst completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +27.5
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 27.1m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Clanking a high volume of outside shots completely negated his otherwise solid defensive effort. The opponent sagged off him aggressively, daring him to shoot and effectively blowing up Chicago's spacing. This offensive stagnation dragged his net rating firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Settling for perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint limited his offensive ceiling. While he provided decent weak-side help defensively, his shot diet was heavily skewed toward low-percentage outside looks. The lack of interior pressure resulted in a marginally negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Despite a massive leap in scoring efficiency compared to his recent slump, defensive lapses in transition ruined his overall impact. He knocked down his spot-up looks but repeatedly lost his man on back-cuts and fast breaks. The defensive bleeding ultimately overshadowed his offensive resurgence.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Josh Giddey 25.8m
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.3

Poor finishing in the paint and a lack of perimeter gravity severely damaged his offensive impact. Defenders consistently went under screens, daring him to shoot and bogging down the half-court offense. Even his strong defensive rebounding couldn't salvage the massive negative value of his missed attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Uncharacteristic passivity and a sharp drop in scoring volume neutralized his usual offensive punch. He struggled to generate downhill momentum, allowing the defense to stay set and easily contain his drives. The lack of rim pressure snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient performances.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.9

Forcing heavily contested shots in isolation completely derailed the offensive flow during his minutes. His inability to break down his primary defender led to empty possessions and opponent transition opportunities. The sheer volume of wasted offensive trips resulted in a massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Failing to secure the defensive glass allowed the opponent to generate costly second-chance opportunities. While he finished his limited looks around the rim, his lack of physicality in the paint was a glaring weakness. The inability to anchor the middle dragged down his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -47.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Jones 20.0m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

A shocking collapse in offensive efficiency snapped his recent hot streak and cratered his impact. He completely lost his touch around the basket, missing a slew of floaters and layups he normally converts. This sudden inability to punish drop coverage stalled the offense entirely.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Perfect shooting execution in a tiny window provided a quick, positive jolt to the lineup. He didn't force the issue, simply capitalizing on the few defensive breakdowns that came his way. It was a highly efficient, mistake-free cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Barely registering on the game's radar, his brief appearance was defined by cardio rather than contribution. He failed to involve himself in the offense or make a dent on the glass. The stint was too short to cause major damage, but he was effectively a ghost on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Moussa Diabaté 30.6m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.8

Flawless rim-running and elite defensive anchoring produced a monster overall rating. He refused to force bad shots, maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the basket. His paint deterrence completely erased the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense +8.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 25.4m
23
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.5

High-volume perimeter execution kept the offensive engine humming. He hunted mismatches on the wing, converting difficult isolation looks while providing solid weak-side defensive rotations. Continuing his recent hot streak, his shot selection remained pristine.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +17.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -13.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S LaMelo Ball 23.2m
16
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.3

Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers torpedoed his overall efficiency. While he generated some offensive flow, the sheer volume of low-percentage outside attempts dragged down his net impact. His shot diet heavily favored difficult pull-ups over rim pressure.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +60.8
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 22.5m
21
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.5

A relentless barrage of high-quality perimeter looks drove his massive positive impact. He capitalized on defensive rotations to generate efficient offense without bleeding value through mistakes. His floor-spacing gravity consistently warped the opposing scheme.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +45.4
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 22.3m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.0

Defensive versatility anchored this highly effective stint. He paired aggressive closeouts with efficient spot-up execution to dominate his matchup on both ends. The ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions created a suffocating defensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Sion James 19.6m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.2

A total lack of scoring gravity cratered his offensive impact. Opposing defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates. Continuing a brutal offensive slump, he was an active detriment to the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Timely floor spacing from the corners kept the offense breathing during key stretches. He capitalized on defensive neglect to knock down open looks, shaking off a recent string of poor shooting nights. His sturdy post defense prevented opponents from exploiting switches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 16.9m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Breaking out of a severe slump, his opportunistic cutting and spot-up execution provided a massive spark. He supplemented his sudden offensive resurgence with high-motor hustle plays that extended possessions. This energetic two-way burst completely flipped his recent negative trajectory.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +53.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped his minutes on the floor. He failed to register a single field goal attempt, turning into an offensive zero despite offering some mild rim protection. The inability to make himself a lob threat allowed the defense to trap the ball-handlers freely.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Coby White 15.6m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

A noticeable dip in offensive aggression limited his ability to influence the game. He settled into a passive off-ball role, failing to generate the downhill rim pressure that usually defines his stints. The lack of secondary playmaking resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Forcing up contested perimeter looks resulted in empty possessions that stalled the offense. The sheer volume of missed outside shots outweighed his minor contributions on the glass. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, compounding his negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 7.8m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Instant offense and disruptive point-of-attack defense defined this highly productive cameo. He attacked closeouts decisively, generating high-value looks in a very short window. His aggressive ball pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm perfectly.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Brief but stabilizing, his stint was defined by positional discipline rather than raw production. He set solid screens and executed defensive rotations without making costly mistakes. It was a neutral shift that simply kept the ship steady while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0