Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead PHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHI 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 169 attempts

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 12/22 +2.2
Oubre Jr. 10/15 +6.0
Grimes 9/15 +3.2
Watford 5/7 +2.5
Walker 3/7 -1.7
Payne Open 3/7 -2.4
Barlow Open 2/5 -2.4
Bona Open 2/4 -1.1
Drummond Open 1/4 -3.3

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson Open 12/19 +3.6
Alexander-Walker 8/15 +2.2
McCollum 6/13 -1.5
Daniels Open 7/10 +3.1
Okongwu Open 4/7 +0.6
Kispert 3/7 -0.7
Risacher 3/5 +2.1
Landale Hard 2/4 +1.2
Gueye Open 1/2 -0.8
Vincent Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHI
ATL
47/86 Field Goals 46/83
54.7% Field Goal % 55.4%
10/26 3-Pointers 13/32
38.5% 3-Point % 40.6%
12/18 Free Throws 20/25
66.7% Free Throw % 80.0%
61.8% True Shooting % 66.5%
42 Total Rebounds 45
10 Offensive 12
26 Defensive 27
27 Assists 32
1.29 Assist/TO Ratio 1.52
19 Turnovers 21
10 Steals 11
4 Blocks 2
20 Fouls 18
74 Points in Paint 60
21 Fast Break Pts 10
25 Points off TOs 29
12 Second Chance Pts 14
27 Bench Points 24
13 Largest Lead 10
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Johnson
35 PTS · 10 REB · 7 AST · 38.7 MIN
+31.11
2
Tyrese Maxey
31 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 37.8 MIN
+23.1
3
Dyson Daniels
15 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 34.7 MIN
+20.85
4
Kelly Oubre Jr.
24 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 35.9 MIN
+19.14
5
Quentin Grimes
26 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 41.2 MIN
+15.36
6
Zaccharie Risacher
8 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 22.4 MIN
+15.27
7
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
24 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 36.4 MIN
+14.88
8
Onyeka Okongwu
10 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 28.9 MIN
+11.78
9
Cameron Payne
6 PTS · 1 REB · 6 AST · 14.9 MIN
+9.98
10
Trendon Watford
10 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 18.6 MIN
+7.93
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:05 O. Okongwu REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 116–125
Q4 0:06 MISS A. Bona tip Layup 116–125
Q4 0:06 A. Bona REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 116–125
Q4 0:10 MISS C. Payne 9' driving floating Shot 116–125
Q4 0:16 N. Alexander-Walker running DUNK (24 PTS) (C. McCollum 7 AST) 116–125
Q4 0:16 C. McCollum REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 116–123
Q4 0:18 MISS Q. Grimes 25' pullup bank 3PT 116–123
Q4 0:23 T. Maxey STEAL (4 STL) 116–123
Q4 0:23 C. McCollum bad pass TURNOVER (6 TO) 116–123
Q4 0:25 T. Maxey Free Throw 1 of 1 (31 PTS) 116–123
Q4 0:25 O. Okongwu shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Maxey 1 FT) 115–123
Q4 0:25 T. Maxey driving Layup (30 PTS) 115–123
Q4 0:31 J. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (35 PTS) 113–123
Q4 0:31 J. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 (34 PTS) 113–122
Q4 0:31 D. Barlow take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 113–121

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 38.7m
35
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+36.9

An overwhelming offensive explosion fueled a dominant overall rating, blending high-volume shot creation with elite efficiency. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post and utilized his athleticism to finish through contact at the rim. Solid defensive engagement and timely hustle plays ensured his massive scoring output resulted in a blowout impact score.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Scoring +29.8
Creation +5.8
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +12.7
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
24
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.1

Strong perimeter shot-making and active hustle metrics kept his net impact in the green during a heavy-minute workload. He thrived as a secondary creator, consistently punishing late closeouts with decisive drives or spot-up triples. However, slight defensive lapses in off-ball navigation prevented his overall score from matching his impressive offensive output.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +18.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 34.7m
15
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.5

Elite hustle metrics and suffocating point-of-attack defense drove a massive positive impact. He consistently blew up passing lanes and generated extra possessions, serving as the ultimate connective tissue for the starting unit. Highly selective, efficient shot-making ensured he maximized his offensive touches without forcing the issue against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +7.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 32.4m
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.4

Poor perimeter shot selection and likely costly turnovers severely dragged down his overall impact despite decent raw defensive metrics. He struggled to find a rhythm from deep, frequently stalling offensive possessions with contested, late-clock jumpers. The inability to efficiently orchestrate the offense allowed the opposition to capitalize on empty trips down the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -11.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Onyeka Okongwu 28.9m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.9

Despite decent efficiency, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to struggles anchoring the paint against physical drives. He failed to generate enough rim deterrence, allowing opponents to convert high-percentage looks in the restricted area. The lack of dominant rebounding presence limited his ability to control the tempo from the center position.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense -0.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Exceptional defensive positioning and high-energy hustle plays drove a stellar positive impact in a complementary role. He perfectly executed his three-and-D responsibilities, hitting timely perimeter shots while seamlessly switching across multiple positions. His ability to impact the game without requiring heavy touches made him a massive plus for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Jock Landale 19.1m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

A lack of defensive resistance and poor hustle metrics undermined a relatively efficient offensive showing. He struggled to protect the rim in drop coverage, frequently allowing guards to turn the corner for easy floaters. The inability to secure contested rebounds or generate extra possessions left his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Subpar perimeter shooting and a lack of secondary impact plays resulted in a negative overall rating. He failed to punish defensive rotations from beyond the arc, which neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Without his shot falling, his inability to consistently generate rim pressure or create for others became glaringly apparent.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Relentless energy and outstanding hustle metrics generated highly positive value in a very short burst of playing time. He maximized his minutes by crashing the glass, setting hard screens, and disrupting passing lanes. The willingness to do the dirty work provided a noticeable spark to the second unit's defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-19.6

A disastrously brief stint was defined by immediate negative value on both ends of the floor. He failed to establish any offensive rhythm and was quickly targeted by opposing guards on defense. The coaching staff pulled the plug rapidly as his presence actively hindered the unit's spacing and flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -110.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Quentin Grimes 41.2m
26
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.3

Impact cratered despite elite shot-making due to severe defensive breakdowns and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. He consistently punished closeouts on offense, but his inability to navigate off-ball screens allowed the opposition to answer immediately. The stark contrast between his box score and net impact highlights a performance filled with empty calories.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.2m
Scoring +20.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tyrese Maxey 37.9m
31
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.8

Relentless rim pressure and elite shot creation generated a massive positive impact across the board. His defensive engagement was particularly notable, using active hands to disrupt passing lanes and ignite transition opportunities. The ability to maintain high-end efficiency on a heavy usage rate completely dictated the offensive flow and overwhelmed primary defenders.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +23.8
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.8
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 35.9m
24
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.1

Elite shot selection and conversion rate fueled a massive offensive spike that anchored his positive impact. Defensive rotations were consistently punished as he capitalized on high-quality looks from all three levels. His active hands and robust hustle metrics ensured the scoring burst wasn't given back in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Adem Bona 29.1m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Strong defensive positioning wasn't enough to salvage a negative overall impact, largely dragged down by offensive invisibility. A severe lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint for primary creators. He struggled to establish meaningful post position, forcing the offense into stagnant, late-clock situations.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +7.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 26.1m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.7

Impact plummeted due to a lack of offensive assertiveness and likely costly mistakes not captured by standard splits. The steep drop-off in scoring volume from his recent stretch left the second unit devoid of a reliable interior presence. His inability to generate consistent rim pressure allowed the opposing frontcourt to dictate the tempo and swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Missed bunnies around the rim and a complete lack of offensive gravity cratered his overall impact score. While he secured his usual rebounding real estate, the inability to finish through contact stalled out multiple half-court possessions. Opposing bigs comfortably ignored him on the perimeter, severely shrinking the floor for driving guards.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Highly efficient interior finishing was completely undermined by poor defensive positioning and a lack of overall hustle. He successfully bullied smaller defenders in the paint, but was repeatedly targeted and exposed in space on the other end. The inability to offer resistance at the rim allowed the opposition to generate easy looks, erasing his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

A surprising scoring punch wasn't enough to keep his net impact out of the red, largely due to a lack of secondary hustle plays. He found success exploiting mismatches on the perimeter, but defensive rotations were frequently a step slow. The offensive uptick was ultimately neutralized by giving up too much ground in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.9

Exceptional defensive metrics and hustle plays drove a highly positive stint despite a quiet scoring night. He thrived as a disruptive point-of-attack defender, consistently blowing up dribble handoffs and forcing the offense out of rhythm. His value came entirely from high-IQ connective passing and relentless energy in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0