Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DAL lead ATL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ATL 2P — 3P —
DAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 7/19 -3.5
McCollum 9/14 +3.9
Alexander-Walker 8/14 +3.7
Daniels Open 9/13 +3.3
Kuminga Hard 7/11 +5.9
Okongwu Hard 5/11 +0.3
Kispert 4/7 +1.1
Risacher 2/4 +0.3
Vincent Hard 1/4 -0.7
Landale Hard 2/3 +1.9

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Flagg 6/15 -2.5
Washington 7/14 +0.2
Thompson Hard 6/12 +3.4
Gafford Open 9/10 +5.0
Marshall Hard 2/10 -4.7
Nembhard Hard 3/7 +1.5
Christie 4/6 +3.0
Middleton 2/6 -1.2
Johnson 1/3 -1.6
Bagley III Open 1/2 -0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ATL
DAL
55/102 Field Goals 42/86
53.9% Field Goal % 48.8%
14/35 3-Pointers 11/28
40.0% 3-Point % 39.3%
11/14 Free Throws 25/29
78.6% Free Throw % 86.2%
62.4% True Shooting % 60.8%
48 Total Rebounds 53
12 Offensive 11
30 Defensive 32
36 Assists 26
3.27 Assist/TO Ratio 1.37
11 Turnovers 18
10 Steals 8
3 Blocks 6
21 Fouls 12
72 Points in Paint 56
12 Fast Break Pts 21
23 Points off TOs 19
17 Second Chance Pts 19
41 Bench Points 55
21 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Daniel Gafford
24 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 22.4 MIN
+26.67
2
CJ McCollum
24 PTS · 0 REB · 7 AST · 28.3 MIN
+24.36
3
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
22 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 30.3 MIN
+23.47
4
Dyson Daniels
19 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 31.9 MIN
+22.72
5
P.J. Washington
23 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 29.9 MIN
+17.66
6
Jonathan Kuminga
16 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 18.4 MIN
+16.55
7
Klay Thompson
17 PTS · 0 REB · 1 AST · 21.9 MIN
+13.56
8
Ryan Nembhard
8 PTS · 2 REB · 12 AST · 26.8 MIN
+11.46
9
Jalen Johnson
17 PTS · 11 REB · 9 AST · 37.0 MIN
+11.17
10
Cooper Flagg
17 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 33.5 MIN
+9.6
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:23 A. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 1 (3 PTS) 135–120
Q4 0:23 J. Johnson shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Johnson 1 FT) 135–119
Q4 0:23 A. Johnson driving Layup (2 PTS) 135–119
Q4 0:35 M. Bagley III REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 135–117
Q4 0:37 MISS C. Houstan 27' running 3PT 135–117
Q4 0:42 J. Johnson REBOUND (Off:2 Def:9) 135–117
Q4 0:46 MISS R. Nembhard 17' step back Shot 135–117
Q4 0:51 K. Wallace cutting Layup (2 PTS) (O. Okongwu 4 AST) 135–117
Q4 1:03 M. Bagley III alley-oop Layup (2 PTS) (R. Nembhard 12 AST) 133–117
Q4 1:15 J. Johnson 26' 3PT (17 PTS) 133–115
Q4 1:15 J. Johnson REBOUND (Off:2 Def:8) 130–115
Q4 1:19 A. Johnson BLOCK (1 BLK) 130–115
Q4 1:19 MISS J. Johnson 9' turnaround Shot - blocked 130–115
Q4 1:32 D. Powell driving Layup (2 PTS) (A. Johnson 2 AST) 130–115
Q4 1:34 A. Johnson STEAL (1 STL) 130–113

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

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 33.5m
17
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite rim protection and switchability were completely overshadowed by a dreadful offensive outing. He forced the issue against set defenses, resulting in clunky, contested mid-range misses that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The sharp drop in scoring efficiency from his recent dominant stretch ultimately tanked his overall net value.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 6
S P.J. Washington 29.9m
23
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.6

Aggressive positioning in the high post and timely weak-side cuts drove a highly productive offensive showing. He consistently exploited mismatches against smaller defenders, generating a massive scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. His disciplined closeouts on the perimeter further cemented a strong, positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +17.0
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Max Christie 29.7m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.6

Sizzling shooting efficiency was entirely negated by catastrophic defensive breakdowns that bled points at an alarming rate. He was repeatedly targeted and blown by in isolation sets, forcing the defense into scramble mode. Additionally, a string of careless live-ball turnovers completely erased the value of his offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Naji Marshall 28.2m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

A disastrous shot-selection profile completely cratered his value despite respectable defensive effort. He repeatedly drove into crowded paint areas, resulting in wild misses and empty possessions that killed the team's momentum. Falling drastically short of his usual offensive output, his inability to finish at the rim became a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 26.8m
8
pts
2
reb
12
ast
Impact
-1.5

While his elite playmaking generated high-quality looks for teammates, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive frailties. Opposing guards easily bypassed him at the point of attack, consistently compromising the defensive shell and forcing late rotations. A handful of telegraphed passes also led to run-out dunks that offset his otherwise brilliant facilitation.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
24
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+21.2

Complete domination of the restricted area fueled a spectacular overall impact score. He served as an unstoppable lob threat in the pick-and-roll, converting nearly every touch into high-percentage points to continue his streak of elite efficiency. By sealing his man early and finishing with authority, he anchored an incredibly potent offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +22.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +9.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless off-ball screening actions freed him up for a barrage of perimeter daggers that stretched the opposing defense thin. He punished late closeouts with vintage catch-and-shoot precision, easily surpassing his recent scoring struggles. His veteran positioning on the defensive end helped stabilize the unit and secure a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Stagnant isolation attempts and a lack of burst off the dribble severely limited his offensive utility. Although his length and anticipation generated excellent defensive metrics, his inability to create separation resulted in contested, low-efficiency jumpers. The resulting empty possessions prevented the team from capitalizing on his solid defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

A stark drop in offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor, as he rarely looked at the basket. He provided excellent weak-side rim protection, but his failure to establish deep post position starved the offense of an interior outlet. This passivity erased the momentum he had built over his previous highly efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 9.5m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Injected immediate energy into the lineup by applying relentless full-court pressure on opposing ball handlers. His disruptive defensive presence forced rushed decisions and disrupted the opponent's set plays. Even with limited offensive touches, his high-motor hustle plays firmly established a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

Executed a flawless pick-and-roll dive during his brief time on the court to secure an easy bucket. He set sturdy screens that freed up the primary ball handlers, ensuring the offense operated smoothly. This mistake-free execution in a pinch role yielded a marginally positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +85.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.0m
17
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.8

A heavy volume of forced, contested jumpers cratered his overall value despite commendable defensive metrics. He struggled to find his typical rhythm against physical wing assignments, leading to a noticeable drop from his usual scoring output. While his weak-side rotations were sharp, the offensive inefficiency and empty possessions ultimately outweighed the defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +9.1
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 31.9m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.5

Exceptional finishing at the rim drove a highly efficient scoring surge that easily outpaced his recent averages. His relentless point-of-attack defense generated consistent positive value and disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. The combination of high-percentage looks and active hands resulted in a stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.8

Blistering perimeter efficiency and relentless off-ball movement fueled a massive positive net rating. He consistently punished defensive rotations by burying catch-and-shoot looks from the corners. Adding to his elite offensive spacing, his aggressive navigation through screens yielded superb hustle metrics and completely neutralized his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +17.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 29.4m
12
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Subtle mistakes in the pick-and-roll coverage and mistimed closeouts neutralized his otherwise solid interior presence. He generated decent hustle numbers, but empty offensive possessions and a few costly defensive fouls dragged his net impact into the red. Faltering slightly from his recent efficiency standards, he couldn't quite anchor the second unit effectively.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +8.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 28.3m
24
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+17.7

Masterful navigation of the midrange area allowed him to dissect drop coverages and generate a massive overall impact. Even without his three-point shot falling, his pristine shot selection inside the arc yielded a significant scoring bump over his recent baseline. He also displayed surprising defensive discipline by staying attached to shooters and funneling drivers to the help.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jock Landale 18.6m
5
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.1

Sluggish pick-and-roll defense and a failure to secure contested rebounds allowed opponents to feast on second-chance opportunities. His offensive role was drastically reduced from recent games, and the lack of scoring volume couldn't mask the points he surrendered in the paint. Getting consistently sealed off on the block drove his overall impact firmly into the negatives.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Explosive cuts to the basket and decisive perimeter shooting translated to a highly concentrated burst of positive impact. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications, converting high-value looks to nearly double his recent scoring average in limited minutes. This hyper-efficient stint completely tilted the momentum during the middle frames.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Active hands in the passing lanes generated solid defensive metrics, but his overall impact was dragged down by offensive passivity. He frequently passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to sag and clog the driving lanes for teammates. The resulting spacing issues slightly outweighed his commendable weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive lapses against quicker guards and a lack of rebounding presence kept his net impact slightly below water. While he provided a spark by hunting transition layups and quick-trigger jumpers, he gave that value right back on the other end. His inability to stay in front of straight-line drives negated a solid offensive bounce-back.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 10.8m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

A lack of offensive rhythm and stagnant off-ball positioning resulted in a net negative outing. He failed to punish defensive gaps, settling for low-percentage perimeter looks that stalled the half-court offense. While his point-of-attack pressure offered minor defensive value, his inability to threaten the rim made him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

A rushed, contested perimeter attempt and poor transition spacing marred his brief appearance. He failed to get back on defense after the miss, leading directly to an opponent advantage break. Those micro-errors in a tiny sample size resulted in a disproportionately negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Capitalized on a brief rotational cameo by immediately attacking a closeout for a high-percentage finish. He maintained perfect spacing during his short stint, ensuring the offensive flow remained uninterrupted. This quick, mistake-free execution yielded a marginally positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Provided zero offensive gravity during a fleeting stint, allowing his defender to freely roam and double-team the ball handler. He was caught ball-watching on a crucial defensive possession, giving up a backdoor cut that dinged his overall rating. The complete lack of statistical production highlighted a disengaged shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0