Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead DAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DAL 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 162 attempts

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Christie Hard 4/15 -7.1
Middleton 4/11 -2.6
Washington 4/11 -2.6
Williams Open 4/10 -3.6
Gafford Open 5/8 -1.2
Martin 3/7 -1.5
Powell Open 3/5 -0.2
Nembhard Hard 1/4 -0.8
Poulakidas Hard 0/2 -1.7
Johnson Hard 0/1 -0.9

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 5/19 -4.5
Knueppel Hard 6/14 -1.1
Bridges 3/13 -7.0
Miller Hard 6/10 +5.6
James 5/8 +3.8
Williams Hard 4/6 +6.1
Green Hard 4/6 +4.5
Kalkbrenner Open 4/4 +2.4
Diabaté Open 3/4 +0.6
Connaughton Hard 2/3 +2.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DAL
CHA
28/74 Field Goals 42/88
37.8% Field Goal % 47.7%
3/22 3-Pointers 20/51
13.6% 3-Point % 39.2%
31/42 Free Throws 13/19
73.8% Free Throw % 68.4%
48.7% True Shooting % 60.7%
57 Total Rebounds 53
7 Offensive 13
35 Defensive 36
19 Assists 32
1.27 Assist/TO Ratio 2.13
14 Turnovers 14
7 Steals 11
4 Blocks 7
19 Fouls 31
46 Points in Paint 42
12 Fast Break Pts 10
9 Points off TOs 7
17 Second Chance Pts 18
29 Bench Points 54
2 Largest Lead 27
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Ryan Kalkbrenner
10 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 18.3 MIN
+16.63
2
Daniel Gafford
10 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 21.5 MIN
+16.14
3
Sion James
13 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 24.2 MIN
+13.68
4
Brandon Williams
18 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 26.6 MIN
+13.31
5
Grant Williams
12 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 20.6 MIN
+13.22
6
Brandon Miller
17 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 21.4 MIN
+12.56
7
LaMelo Ball
15 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 29.3 MIN
+11.78
8
Kon Knueppel
13 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 32.0 MIN
+9.43
9
Dwight Powell
12 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 26.4 MIN
+9.15
10
Josh Green
11 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 25.4 MIN
+8.9
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:18 CHA shot clock Team TURNOVER 90–117
Q4 0:37 G. Williams REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 90–117
Q4 0:43 MISS J. Poulakidas 14' pullup Shot 90–117
Q4 0:55 P. Connaughton Free Throw 2 of 2 (8 PTS) 90–117
Q4 0:55 P. Connaughton Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS) 90–116
Q4 0:55 A. Johnson personal FOUL (1 PF) (Connaughton 2 FT) 90–115
Q4 1:10 R. Nembhard Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 90–115
Q4 1:10 R. Nembhard Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 89–115
Q4 1:10 S. James take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Nembhard 2 FT) 88–115
Q4 1:10 R. Nembhard REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 88–115
Q4 1:12 MISS T. Salaün Free Throw 2 of 2 88–115
Q4 1:12 TEAM offensive REBOUND 88–115
Q4 1:12 MISS T. Salaün Free Throw 1 of 2 88–115
Q4 1:12 C. Martin shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Salaün 2 FT) 88–115
Q4 1:29 S. James STEAL (2 STL) 88–115

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 32.0m
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.4

Brutal inefficiency from long range dragged down what was otherwise a solid playmaking and rebounding effort. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. While he battled defensively, the volume of empty perimeter possessions tipped his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 30.6m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

A severe regression in finishing efficiency doomed his overall rating. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups instead of leveraging his athleticism at the rim. The resulting transition opportunities for the opponent completely erased the value of his decent rotational defense.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 29.3m
15
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.4

Overcame a horrific shooting night through sheer defensive disruption and elite pacing. His massive defensive score stemmed from a pattern of blowing up passing lanes and sparking fast breaks. Despite bricking heavily from deep, his playmaking and hustle kept the offensive engine running smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.6%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.6
Turnovers -5.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 4
S Moussa Diabaté 22.5m
7
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient interior play by taking only high-value shots around the basket. His vertical spacing and relentless offensive rebounding created vital second-chance opportunities. Solid rim deterrence rounded out a highly effective two-way stint that punished smaller matchups.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 21.4m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Surgical shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive performance that kept the defense constantly off balance. He utilized screens perfectly to find his spots, avoiding the forced looks that plague young scorers. Active hands in the passing lanes amplified his overall positive footprint and sparked transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
Josh Green 25.4m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

A sudden eruption of perimeter shot-making masked underlying defensive passivity. While he punished closeouts effectively to break out of a slump, he struggled to navigate screens on the other end, allowing easy dribble penetration. The give-and-take between his hot shooting and defensive lapses resulted in a nearly neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +76.8
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 24.2m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.6

An absolute terror in the hustle categories, generating extra possessions through sheer willpower. He broke out of a severe shooting slump by confidently stepping into rhythm threes instead of hesitating. His high-energy closeouts and rebounding from the wing position completely tilted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +65.2
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Punished defensive rotations by burying open corner threes at a lethal clip. His floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for the guards, functioning as the perfect release valve against zone coverages. He played within himself offensively, avoiding bad fouls and maintaining solid positional leverage.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +62.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Flawless execution as a roll man resulted in a perfect shooting night and a massive box score impact. He sealed off defenders early, providing massive targets in the paint that collapsed the defense. His vertical presence altered shots at the rim, anchoring the interior during his highly effective minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Provided a stabilizing veteran presence with timely, efficient shot-making from the perimeter. He didn't force the issue, simply taking what the defense gave him to boost his box score impact. Smart positioning and mistake-free basketball during his rotation ensured a modest but positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 3.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Yanked quickly after a disjointed stint where he failed to initiate any meaningful offense. He was targeted immediately on switches defensively, bleeding points in isolation matchups. A complete lack of hustle stats in his brief appearance sealed a highly negative short-shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Rushed a poor shot attempt during a fleeting appearance on the floor. He lacked the time to settle into the flow of the game, resulting in a slightly negative stint. The brief cameo offered no real opportunity to impact the hustle or defensive metrics meaningfully.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +116.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Max Christie 33.4m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive impact. While his perimeter defense remained stingy, the sheer volume of wasted possessions from deep outweighed his stops. Opponents sagged off him entirely, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates and stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 29.1m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

Impact cratered due to inefficient shooting from the perimeter and an inability to convert looks into positive value. Despite showing more scoring aggression than his recent slump, his poor shot selection stalled Dallas's half-court execution. A pattern of clanking contested jumpers ultimately dragged his overall rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S P.J. Washington 27.9m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive versatility and active rotations kept him on the floor, but settling for contested jumpers negated that value. He consistently bailed out the defense by avoiding the rim, leading to empty possessions that hurt the team's momentum. A failure to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities ultimately sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Aggressive downhill drives consistently collapsed the defense, allowing him to generate offense despite missing several looks. He supplemented his rim pressure with timely hustle plays that kept offensive sequences alive. His ability to draw contact and force defensive rotations was the engine for his highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 21.5m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Dominated the interior with elite rim protection and high-percentage finishing around the basket. His relentless activity on the glass generated crucial extra possessions, driving a massive defensive footprint. Continuing a trend of hyper-efficient converting, he anchored the paint flawlessly by sealing his man early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -46.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Capitalized on his minutes by executing perfectly in the pick-and-roll, breaking out of a recent offensive slump. Active screening and hard rolls to the rim created gravity that opened up the floor for the guards. Solid positional defense and a pattern of winning 50/50 balls ensured his minutes were a net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Caleb Martin 25.9m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

Elite effort metrics and constant motion were entirely undone by stagnant offensive execution and missed perimeter looks. He failed to stretch the floor, allowing defenders to pack the paint during his shifts. Despite flying around for loose balls, his inability to connect on spot-up chances proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/8 (37.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -59.7
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Smothering point-of-attack defense nearly salvaged a quiet offensive performance. He struggled to find his rhythm as a playmaker, often deferring rather than attacking gaps in the defense. A pattern of offensive passivity kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral despite his defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Utterly invisible on the offensive end, failing to register a single point while missing his few attempts. His inability to create separation or impact the spacing made the offense play four-on-five. Minor contributions on the glass couldn't mask how much his offensive zeroes hurt the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Johnson 13.2m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Floated through his brief minutes without leaving any tangible imprint on the game. A complete lack of aggression on both ends resulted in zero hustle contributions and negative defensive value. He was essentially a non-factor, allowing the opposition to dictate the flow during his stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -71.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1