Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Holiday Open 9/16 +0.9
Clingan Open 5/13 -4.4
Wesley Open 5/11 -3.7
Camara 3/10 -2.5
Henderson 3/9 -3.1
Grant 1/9 -7.1
Cissoko Open 3/6 -1.6
Krejčí Hard 4/5 +4.7
Thybulle 2/4 +0.2
Cooke 0/3 -3.4

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Okongwu Hard 9/15 +9.7
McCollum Hard 6/13 +1.3
Landale 6/11 -1.4
Kuminga 7/10 +3.5
Alexander-Walker 5/9 +1.4
Daniels Open 6/9 +0.7
Johnson Hard 3/9 -2.4
Kispert Hard 3/5 +2.9
Vincent 2/4 +0.3
Risacher 2/4 +0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
ATL
35/87 Field Goals 51/92
40.2% Field Goal % 55.4%
13/37 3-Pointers 15/40
35.1% 3-Point % 37.5%
18/26 Free Throws 18/23
69.2% Free Throw % 78.3%
51.3% True Shooting % 66.1%
47 Total Rebounds 60
9 Offensive 13
29 Defensive 41
23 Assists 36
1.35 Assist/TO Ratio 2.40
17 Turnovers 13
5 Steals 10
6 Blocks 5
15 Fouls 25
42 Points in Paint 66
10 Fast Break Pts 24
18 Points off TOs 30
6 Second Chance Pts 12
50 Bench Points 56
3 Largest Lead 34
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Onyeka Okongwu
25 PTS · 10 REB · 6 AST · 26.6 MIN
+27.15
2
Dyson Daniels
12 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 26.1 MIN
+19.89
3
Jonathan Kuminga
20 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 25.4 MIN
+19.84
4
Jrue Holiday
23 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 28.0 MIN
+15.76
5
CJ McCollum
19 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 26.3 MIN
+14.06
6
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
15 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 27.8 MIN
+12.57
7
Jock Landale
14 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 17.7 MIN
+10.95
8
Vít Krejčí
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 30.0 MIN
+10.34
9
Zaccharie Risacher
5 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 22.7 MIN
+9.7
10
Matisse Thybulle
7 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 14.7 MIN
+9.34
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 ATL shot clock Team TURNOVER 101–135
Q4 0:23 M. Gueye REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 101–135
Q4 0:23 MISS J. Cooke tip Layup 101–135
Q4 0:23 J. Cooke REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 101–135
Q4 0:28 MISS S. Cissoko running Layup 101–135
Q4 0:33 S. Cissoko REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 101–135
Q4 0:38 MISS M. Gueye 3PT 101–135
Q4 0:44 Z. Risacher REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 101–135
Q4 0:44 MISS B. Wesley tip Layup 101–135
Q4 0:44 B. Wesley REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 101–135
Q4 0:48 MISS B. Wesley driving Layup 101–135
Q4 0:54 J. Cooke REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 101–135
Q4 0:56 MISS Z. Risacher 25' step back 3PT 101–135
Q4 1:05 C. Houstan REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 101–135
Q4 1:08 MISS J. Cooke 25' step back 3PT 101–135

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 30.2m
8
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.8

Clunky isolation attempts and missed perimeter jumpers drove a severe regression from his recent scoring tear. The offensive stagnation and likely turnover issues heavily outweighed his passable defensive metrics, resulting in a disastrous overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.2

Off-ball movement and relentless hustle kept his impact highly positive despite a dip in raw scoring. He generated immense value through loose ball recoveries and smart secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 26.6m
25
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+23.6

Connecting on a barrage of three-pointers to shatter his usual scoring output resulted in an absolute masterclass in floor-stretching from the center position. Combined with elite rim protection and relentless hustle, this was a perfectly optimized two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 26.3m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.9

Smooth shot creation carried the offensive load, though defensive bleeding capped his overall effectiveness. His ability to hit timely momentum-halting jumpers kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 26.1m
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.7

Masterful connective playmaking and stifling perimeter defense fueled a massive positive impact. Relying on high-percentage interior looks rather than forcing outside shots allowed him to pick his spots perfectly.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.3

Decisive downhill drives overpowered defenders, resulting in a massive spike in scoring efficiency. His physical point-of-attack defense perfectly complemented his aggressive offensive approach.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +17.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Exceptional weak-side defensive rotations and disciplined closeouts drove his positive impact almost entirely. He deferred offensively but made his presence felt by completely shutting down his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +54.3
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Jock Landale 17.7m
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Strong screen-and-roll execution allowed him to feast on the interior, though his insistence on taking four threes slightly dampened his efficiency. Solid drop-coverage defense ensured his frontcourt stint remained highly productive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Likely defensive miscommunications or hidden turnover costs bled value, undercutting his efficient spot-up shooting. He spaced the floor effectively but gave back just enough in transition to slip into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 10.6m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Capitalizing on spot-up opportunities provided a quick offensive spark off the bench. Playing mistake-free basketball in his limited run ensured a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +64.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Active on-ball pressure and a quick bucket maximized a tiny window of playing time. He played with high energy to ensure his brief stint was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Poor defensive positioning during a short rotational burst led to easy opponent looks. A missed perimeter shot further highlighted his inability to find a rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Getting caught out of position defensively and remaining invisible offensively defined this brief end-of-bench appearance. He failed to make any tangible positive contribution to offset minor defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 34.7m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Failing to convert a single two-point attempt severely undercut his overall effectiveness. While his hustle and defensive metrics remained strong, forcing contested interior looks derailed offensive momentum and tanked his value.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 30.6m
15
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.1

Dominating the offensive glass and showcasing surprising playmaking flashes anchored his positive impact. However, a high volume of missed interior looks as a center limited his ceiling, preventing a good performance from becoming a truly dominant one.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +19.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jrue Holiday 28.0m
23
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.2

Surgical point-of-attack defense and timely shot creation drove a highly productive shift. By consistently punishing defensive rotations from the perimeter, he maintained his recent high-level scoring output without sacrificing structural integrity.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jerami Grant 26.1m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.8

Forcing contested perimeter looks to snap a cold streak completely destroyed his value tonight. While he tried to compensate with active hustle plays, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kris Murray 4.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Cardio minutes defined this brief rotational stint, as he failed to register a single counting stat. The negative impact score stems entirely from defensive lapses and blown assignments during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Hidden turnover costs and transition defensive lapses plunged his overall impact into the red. The high offensive output and near-perfect shooting efficiency completely masked how much value he gave back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 91.6%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -52.7
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Settling for low-percentage jumpers rather than pressuring the rim derailed his offensive rhythm. The steep drop in his scoring average was a direct result of erratic decision-making that led to empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Blake Wesley 19.6m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.2

Aggressive rim pressure sparked a scoring surge, but defensive lapses and likely ball-security issues dragged his total impact down. The volume of missed interior looks prevented him from capitalizing fully on his increased offensive role.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 18.3m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Generating extra possessions through loose-ball recoveries and relentless energy defined this performance. A massive spike in scoring compared to his recent average was simply a bonus on top of his disruptive defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Wreaking havoc in passing lanes generated a stellar defensive impact score in limited action. Opportunistic scoring off turnovers maximized his value during a highly efficient rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Failing to find the flow of the game during a brief cameo left him without any tangible offensive gravity. Minor defensive contributions couldn't mask the empty minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -84.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Bricking three shots in under four minutes instantly tanked his impact score. This poor shot selection in garbage time highlighted a tendency to force the issue offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0