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 185 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Hardy 5/19 -9.2
Riley 6/17 -4.2
Champagnie 4/11 -4.3
Coulibaly 4/10 -3.5
Vukcevic 3/9 -3.0
Gill 5/8 +1.5
Johnson 5/7 +5.1
Cooper 1/6 -4.9
Carrington Hard 1/4 -1.6
Black Hard 2/3 +1.3

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Kispert 11/19 +6.5
McCollum 9/19 0.0
Daniels 6/9 +2.4
Kuminga 5/9 +0.1
Landale 3/9 -3.6
Risacher 3/8 -2.8
Okongwu 2/7 -3.5
Vincent Hard 1/4 -1.1
Wallace Hard 0/3 -2.6
Newell 1/2 -0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
ATL
36/94 Field Goals 42/91
38.3% Field Goal % 46.2%
9/33 3-Pointers 13/39
27.3% 3-Point % 33.3%
15/16 Free Throws 29/37
93.8% Free Throw % 78.4%
47.5% True Shooting % 58.7%
46 Total Rebounds 71
11 Offensive 11
33 Defensive 45
17 Assists 30
1.21 Assist/TO Ratio 2.14
14 Turnovers 13
7 Steals 12
3 Blocks 8
22 Fouls 17
48 Points in Paint 56
11 Fast Break Pts 24
12 Points off TOs 21
8 Second Chance Pts 16
45 Bench Points 53
0 Largest Lead 32
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Corey Kispert
33 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 28.1 MIN
+26.54
2
Dyson Daniels
13 PTS · 4 REB · 11 AST · 33.4 MIN
+24.92
3
CJ McCollum
25 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 26.1 MIN
+20.43
4
Jonathan Kuminga
17 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 29.7 MIN
+12.7
5
Anthony Gill
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 31.2 MIN
+10.76
6
Justin Champagnie
14 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 19.9 MIN
+10.7
7
Will Riley
14 PTS · 10 REB · 4 AST · 35.5 MIN
+10.23
8
Onyeka Okongwu
10 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 26.4 MIN
+9.97
9
Bilal Coulibaly
10 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 22.3 MIN
+8.13
10
Tre Johnson
14 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 20.0 MIN
+6.68
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 C. Koloko REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 96–126
Q4 0:08 MISS S. Cooper driving Layup 96–126
Q4 0:20 L. Black REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 96–126
Q4 0:23 MISS C. Koloko 10' turnaround Hook 96–126
Q4 0:26 C. Koloko REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 96–126
Q4 0:29 MISS A. Newell 24' pullup 3PT 96–126
Q4 0:43 J. Hardy Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 96–126
Q4 0:43 J. Hardy Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 95–126
Q4 0:43 A. Newell shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Hardy 2 FT) 94–126
Q4 0:59 C. Koloko Free Throw 2 of 2 (4 PTS) 94–126
Q4 0:59 C. Koloko Free Throw 1 of 2 (3 PTS) 94–125
Q4 0:59 J. Hardy loose ball personal FOUL (3 PF) (Koloko 2 FT) 94–124
Q4 0:59 TEAM offensive REBOUND 94–124
Q4 1:00 MISS K. Wallace 7' driving floating Shot 94–124
Q4 1:07 C. Koloko REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 94–124

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 Dyson Daniels 33.4m
13
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
+17.1

Phenomenal defensive disruption and elite playmaking created a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor. He picked apart the opposing defense with precise reads while simultaneously suffocating ball-handlers on the other end. His two-way dominance dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +12.0
Turnovers -4.7
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.0

A massive surge in offensive aggression fueled a positive rating, as he consistently bullied his way to the rim. Strong point-of-attack defense complemented his highly efficient finishing. He exploited slower matchups in transition to break out of his recent scoring slump.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +9.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.6
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 26.4m
10
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.6

Elite rim deterrence and dominant interior defense drove his highly positive impact despite a rough shooting night. He anchored the paint flawlessly, altering numerous shots and cleaning up the defensive glass. The sheer volume of his hustle plays completely masked his struggles to finish inside.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +9.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -5.9
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S CJ McCollum 26.1m
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.4

High-level shot creation and a significant scoring bump from his recent baseline powered a stellar impact score. He punished drop coverage repeatedly with his mid-range pull-up. The offensive gravity he provided opened up the floor for the rest of the unit.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +16.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Missed perimeter assignments and a handful of clanked spot-up looks dragged his rating into the negative. While he maintained his recent scoring average, his inability to convert in traffic hurt the team's spacing. Opponents successfully neutralized his off-ball cutting by denying him the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
33
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.4

An absolute flamethrower performance from beyond the arc generated a massive positive impact. He shattered his recent scoring averages by relentlessly hunting his shot off screens and punishing late closeouts. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he converted broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +43.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +26.2
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jock Landale 18.3m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

Missed bunnies around the basket neutralized the value of his stout post defense. He failed to capitalize on deep post position, dragging down his usually reliable efficiency. The resulting empty possessions prevented him from making a positive mark.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +55.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -6.1
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A lack of offensive volume kept his impact hovering right around neutral. He provided solid weak-side rim protection but was largely ignored on the offensive end. The steep drop in his scoring involvement limited his overall influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -2.4
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 16.1m
3
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.3

Poor defensive resistance and bricked perimeter looks resulted in a heavily negative rating. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, leading to defensive breakdowns and easy penetration. The inability to knock down open catch-and-shoot opportunities compounded his struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.6

Complete offensive invisibility and missed spot-up opportunities cratered his net rating. He failed to register a single point, halting his recent stretch of efficient shooting. The lack of floor-stretching gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint against the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Drawing fouls and securing extra possessions in limited action drove a surprisingly high impact score. He maximized his brief appearance by playing physically in the paint and getting to the charity stripe. The sudden burst of interior activity provided a spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 3.0m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Brief minutes and minor defensive miscommunications resulted in a slightly negative score. He struggled with pick-and-roll positioning during his short stint on the floor. The limited sample size prevented him from establishing any real rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 35.5m
14
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

A high volume of clanked perimeter shots severely dragged down his net rating despite solid defensive metrics. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock neutralized the value he brought on the glass. The stark drop in efficiency from his recent hot streak crippled the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -39.5
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +12.7
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bilal Coulibaly 22.3m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Despite positive hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to empty possessions and missed jumpers. The scoring dip from his recent baseline highlighted a lack of offensive rhythm. He struggled to generate clean looks when forced to create off the dribble against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bub Carrington 22.0m
2
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.1

Offensive passivity and a steep drop in scoring aggression cratered his overall value. He deferred too often on the perimeter, allowing the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes. While his hustle metrics remained steady, the lack of a scoring threat rendered him a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 20.0m
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Even with a highly efficient scoring surge compared to his recent slump, hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers kept his net score negative. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities but gave back value through poor transition awareness. His off-ball gravity wasn't enough to offset the costly empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -9.5
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Defensive lapses and poor rim protection kept his overall impact below water. He settled for low-percentage outside attempts rather than exploiting mismatches inside. Opponents consistently targeted his heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.8
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Anthony Gill 31.2m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Excellent shot selection and timely defensive rotations kept his impact marginally positive. He extended his streak of highly efficient shooting by strictly taking what the defense conceded around the basket. Gritty positional rebounding anchored the second unit during crucial swing moments.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Leaky Black 30.4m
4
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Despite strong defensive metrics, his complete lack of offensive involvement allowed opponents to play five-on-four. He passed up open looks and failed to stretch the floor, stalling the offensive engine. The resulting spacing issues heavily penalized his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 3.9%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 27.5m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

A brutal shooting performance completely derailed his net impact, as he repeatedly forced contested isolation jumpers. The sheer volume of wasted possessions overshadowed an otherwise stellar effort in the hustle department. His tunnel vision against set defenses killed the team's ball movement.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.2%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Tenacious defensive activity and timely closeouts salvaged his rating despite a cold shooting night. He made his mark by disrupting passing lanes and generating extra possessions through sheer effort. Continuing his recent trend of physical play, he found ways to contribute when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

An inability to finish through contact at the rim resulted in a disastrous offensive rating. His erratic decision-making and forced drives into traffic killed multiple momentum-building possessions. The severe drop-off from his usual efficiency made him practically unplayable down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0