Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NOP lead DAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DAL 2P — 3P —
NOP 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 199 attempts

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Marshall 12/24 -0.1
Flagg 10/21 -3.1
Washington Hard 7/13 +3.9
Middleton Hard 2/9 -3.2
Nembhard 1/8 -5.8
Christie Hard 4/7 +4.4
Bagley III Open 4/7 -0.2
Poulakidas Hard 1/5 -2.2
Johnson Open 2/5 -2.5
Smith 1/3 -1.7

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Bey 8/18 -2.9
Murphy III Hard 7/15 +0.8
Fears 7/14 +0.4
Williamson Open 11/13 +4.0
Jones 4/9 -1.4
Poole Hard 2/9 -4.6
Matković Open 5/7 +3.0
Queen Hard 2/4 +1.3
Missi Open 1/4 -3.1
Hawkins Hard 1/1 +1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DAL
NOP
44/104 Field Goals 48/95
42.3% Field Goal % 50.5%
14/39 3-Pointers 11/35
35.9% 3-Point % 31.4%
9/14 Free Throws 22/34
64.3% Free Throw % 64.7%
50.4% True Shooting % 58.7%
58 Total Rebounds 66
13 Offensive 12
38 Defensive 45
27 Assists 31
2.25 Assist/TO Ratio 2.21
11 Turnovers 14
10 Steals 7
3 Blocks 12
22 Fouls 16
58 Points in Paint 68
39 Fast Break Pts 21
19 Points off TOs 17
15 Second Chance Pts 16
26 Bench Points 48
10 Largest Lead 19
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Naji Marshall
32 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 32.9 MIN
+26.95
2
Zion Williamson
27 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 28.5 MIN
+23.7
3
P.J. Washington
18 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 31.2 MIN
+19.51
4
Saddiq Bey
23 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 35.0 MIN
+18.57
5
Karlo Matković
13 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 19.8 MIN
+17.66
6
Marvin Bagley III
9 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 18.8 MIN
+14.93
7
Trey Murphy III
17 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 32.7 MIN
+14.8
8
Max Christie
12 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 31.5 MIN
+14.52
9
Cooper Flagg
21 PTS · 7 REB · 8 AST · 30.0 MIN
+14.16
10
Derik Queen
9 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 20.7 MIN
+10.65
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 T. Smith REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 111–129
Q4 0:08 MISS M. Peavy Free Throw 2 of 2 111–129
Q4 0:08 TEAM offensive REBOUND 111–129
Q4 0:08 MISS M. Peavy Free Throw 1 of 2 111–129
Q4 0:08 A. Johnson shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Peavy 2 FT) 111–129
Q4 0:08 M. Peavy REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 111–129
Q4 0:08 MISS M. Peavy running DUNK 111–129
Q4 0:13 J. Hawkins REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 111–129
Q4 0:16 MISS R. Nembhard 3PT 111–129
Q4 0:22 D. Powell REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 111–129
Q4 0:26 MISS T. Smith 3PT 111–129
Q4 0:37 J. Hawkins Free Throw 2 of 2 (5 PTS) 111–129
Q4 0:37 J. Hawkins Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 111–128
Q4 0:37 J. Poulakidas shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Hawkins 2 FT) 111–127
Q4 0:49 J. Hawkins REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 111–127

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

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 35.0m
23
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.4

High-volume isolation attacks yielded counting stats but lacked the efficiency needed to move the needle. Clanking multiple perimeter looks allowed the defense to pack the paint, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trey Murphy III 32.7m
17
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.1

Settling for contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged his offensive efficiency. Although his length disrupted passing lanes on the other end, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 28.6m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

Uncharacteristic defensive lapses and slow rotations allowed opponents to find a rhythm against him. Coupled with a few stagnant offensive possessions, his inability to dictate the physical terms of the matchup resulted in a surprisingly negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 28.5m
27
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+21.6

Absolutely bulldozed his primary matchups, generating elite value through sheer physical dominance at the rim. His near-perfect finishing efficiency punished every defensive rotation, driving a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 79.6%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +23.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Yves Missi 28.2m
4
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Anchored the paint with exceptional rim protection and timely weak-side rotations. Even with a muted offensive role, his relentless activity on 50/50 balls and shot-altering presence created immense hidden value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +11.7
Defense +0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
17
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.3

Showcased a smooth scoring package, but defensive miscommunications and late closeouts gave points right back. The offensive production was ultimately overshadowed by structural breakdowns on the other side of the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Derik Queen 20.7m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Dictated the physicality of the second unit through bruising screens and stout post defense. By avoiding foul trouble and forcing opponents into tough midrange attempts, he anchored a highly successful bench stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
13
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.7

Completely changed the geometry of the floor by stepping out and burying pick-and-pop jumpers. Combined with suffocating drop coverage and high-motor rim runs, this was a masterclass in maximizing limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +8.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Poole 18.2m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.0

Shot selection was the primary culprit here, as he repeatedly hijacked the offense with off-balance, early-clock triples. The complete lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to leak out in transition, severely punishing the team.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Maximized a microscopic stint by instantly hunting his shot and connecting from deep. Drawing a quick foul on a closeout further boosted his immediate, high-leverage scoring burst.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.1

Rushed a contested look during a brief garbage-time appearance, resulting in an empty trip. The lack of court time prevented him from establishing any defensive rhythm to offset the miss.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Naji Marshall 32.9m
32
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+25.9

Unrelenting rim pressure and a massive uptick in shot volume drove his elite offensive impact. The sheer scoring load masked a relatively quiet defensive night, as he repeatedly broke down his primary defender in isolation to generate offense.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Max Christie 31.5m
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.2

Thrived as a low-usage connector by burying catch-and-shoot opportunities when the defense collapsed. A relentless motor on loose balls and disciplined perimeter containment kept his defensive and hustle metrics firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S P.J. Washington 31.2m
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.5

Spacing the floor with high-quality perimeter looks allowed him to punish defensive rotations all night. His value was further amplified by timely closeouts and switchability on the defensive end, cementing a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cooper Flagg 30.0m
21
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.5

Elite weak-side rotations and active hands fueled a massive defensive impact score. However, his overall net rating was suppressed by perimeter shooting struggles and forced attempts in traffic that resulted in empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ryan Nembhard 25.2m
2
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-16.0

Offensive rhythm completely collapsed due to forced drives and heavily contested floaters. While he competed hard at the point of attack defensively, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions cratered his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Capitalized on deep post positioning and soft touch around the basket to generate highly efficient offense. Kept his mistakes to a minimum, allowing his interior finishing to drive a strong positive rating in a reserve role.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense -3.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Failed to punish defensive closeouts, bricking several wide-open looks from beyond the arc. The inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to sag, compounding the negative weight of his missed attempts.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers, stalling the offensive flow and leading to a string of empty trips. His veteran positioning yielded some defensive stops, but the erratic shot selection ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

Operated largely as an offensive spectator, failing to register a single field goal attempt during his rotation. The lack of rim pressure or screening gravity rendered him a non-factor, allowing the opposition to essentially defend five-on-four.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 12.2m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

Struggled to find the pace of the game, forcing a couple of ill-advised drives into heavy traffic. While he showed flashes of lateral quickness on defense, the disjointed offensive execution kept his impact firmly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

Despite coming up empty on his limited offensive touches, relentless energy defined this brief stint. Active hands in passing lanes and hard closeouts generated enough defensive value to swing his overall impact into the positive.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -131.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Rushed his perimeter looks during a brief cameo, preventing him from establishing any offensive rhythm. He did manage to hold his ground on a couple of defensive switches, mitigating the damage from the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1