Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 190 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Giddey Open 10/17 +1.6
White Open 6/15 -5.0
Okoro Open 7/11 -0.6
Jones 3/9 -4.4
Williams Hard 6/8 +6.4
Vučević 6/8 +4.3
Buzelis Open 5/8 -0.4
Smith 2/8 -4.8
Collins 6/7 +6.3
Terry 1/2 -0.3

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller Hard 8/22 -3.6
Knueppel Hard 12/21 +7.5
Bridges 13/20 +6.7
James 5/9 +0.8
Simpson 4/9 -0.9
Kalkbrenner Open 5/6 +1.6
Salaün 2/5 -1.2
Green Hard 1/2 0.0
Diabaté Open 1/2 -0.8
Peterson Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
CHA
52/93 Field Goals 51/97
55.9% Field Goal % 52.6%
10/28 3-Pointers 16/37
35.7% 3-Point % 43.2%
15/19 Free Throws 8/10
78.9% Free Throw % 80.0%
63.6% True Shooting % 62.1%
55 Total Rebounds 38
11 Offensive 8
33 Defensive 23
29 Assists 30
2.23 Assist/TO Ratio 3.33
12 Turnovers 8
3 Steals 6
6 Blocks 3
11 Fouls 19
80 Points in Paint 66
11 Fast Break Pts 18
9 Points off TOs 15
20 Second Chance Pts 15
45 Bench Points 23
7 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Miles Bridges
32 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 33.9 MIN
+28.59
2
Kon Knueppel
33 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 36.0 MIN
+27.09
3
Josh Giddey
26 PTS · 7 REB · 11 AST · 34.2 MIN
+21.9
4
Zach Collins
16 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 19.9 MIN
+18.65
5
Patrick Williams
16 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+16.48
6
Nikola Vučević
13 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 21.6 MIN
+12.19
7
Isaac Okoro
15 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+11.8
8
Jalen Smith
5 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 16.8 MIN
+11.64
9
KJ Simpson
10 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 25.3 MIN
+10.8
10
Ryan Kalkbrenner
10 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 31.1 MIN
+9.53
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 K. Knueppel putback Layup (33 PTS) 129–126
Q4 0:00 K. Knueppel REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 129–124
Q4 0:03 MISS B. Miller 29' pullup 3PT 129–124
Q4 0:08 C. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 129–124
Q4 0:08 C. White Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 128–124
Q4 0:08 B. Miller personal FOUL (5 PF) (White 2 FT) 127–124
Q4 0:10 TEAM defensive REBOUND 127–124
Q4 0:10 MISS K. Knueppel 26' pullup 3PT 127–124
Q4 0:14 C. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 127–124
Q4 0:14 TEAM offensive REBOUND 126–124
Q4 0:14 MISS C. White Free Throw 1 of 2 126–124
Q4 0:14 K. Knueppel personal FOUL (3 PF) (White 2 FT) 126–124
Q4 0:18 M. Bridges driving Layup (32 PTS) 126–124
Q4 0:24 J. Giddey turnaround Hook (26 PTS) (C. White 2 AST) 126–122
Q4 0:37 M. Bridges Free Throw 1 of 1 (30 PTS) 124–122

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

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 36.0m
33
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+27.1

Torched drop coverages all night, utilizing a lethal combination of off-the-dribble shooting and decisive cuts to nearly double his recent scoring output. His relentless offensive pressure and elite shot selection quality forced constant defensive rotations, driving a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +26.3
Creation +4.1
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 34.2m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

An uncharacteristically cold shooting night plagued by forced isolation jumpers and missed shots cratered his offensive efficiency. While he fought hard defensively and generated extra possessions, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips severely damaged his net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 33.9m
32
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+22.6

Bullied smaller defenders in the mid-post and finished through contact with remarkable efficiency. This overwhelming physical mismatch dictated the half-court flow, allowing him to carry the scoring load while keeping his overall impact heavily in the green through high-percentage shot selection.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +26.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +7.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite converting his rim-running opportunities at a high clip, his overall impact suffered due to likely foul costs and struggles in pick-and-roll coverage. Opposing guards seemingly exploited his drop defense, negating the value of his interior finishing and hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S KJ Simpson 25.3m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Flashed some capable shot-making off the bench, but defensive miscommunications and likely rotational errors kept his impact underwater. His inability to consistently string together stops and avoid foul costs outweighed the modest offensive spark he provided.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 25.9m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Broke out of a severe shooting slump with decisive drives and confident perimeter strokes, vastly exceeding his recent output. However, hidden transition defense lapses or poorly timed foul costs likely prevented this offensive resurgence from translating into a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 17.4m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Continued a prolonged stretch of offensive invisibility, failing to pressure the rim or space the floor effectively. His lack of aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes, stalling the offense and resulting in a heavily negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Made his mark primarily as a disruptive defensive presence, utilizing his length to blow up passing lanes and contest perimeter shooters. This high-energy defensive versatility and timely hustle plays comfortably offset a relatively quiet offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Struggled to establish deep post position or find rolling angles, resulting in a sharp drop-off from his recent highly efficient performances. His minimal offensive footprint neutralized his solid positional defense, leaving him with a slightly negative overall grade due to missed opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -55.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

Looked completely out of sync during a brief stint, failing to execute offensive sets or stay in front of his man. His minutes were characterized by empty possessions and defensive bleeding that quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 34.2m
26
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+17.1

Dictated the tempo flawlessly, breaking out of a recent scoring slump with aggressive downhill drives and elite playmaking reads. His size advantage at the point of attack created consistent mismatches, driving a massive offensive spike fueled by excellent shot selection quality.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +20.9
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Coby White 29.6m
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Shot selection was the primary culprit here, as forced perimeter looks and contested drives torpedoed his offensive efficiency. Even with engaged point-of-attack defense, the sheer volume of empty possessions and missed shots dragged his overall impact deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 26.2m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Despite an aggressive scoring surge that easily eclipsed his recent averages, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive breakdowns and hidden mistakes. Costly live-ball turnovers likely negated his interior finishing, allowing the opponent to capitalize in transition and erasing his offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 23.7m
10
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

A passive offensive approach saw his scoring volume plummet compared to his recent form, limiting his overall influence. While he showed flashes of secondary rim protection, poorly timed foul costs and a lack of assertiveness kept his net impact negative.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Anchored the interior with highly efficient shot selection, punishing mismatches in the pick-and-pop game. His solid positional defense and ability to secure contested rebounds provided a steadying, positive presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.9

Snapped out of a brutal shooting slump by hunting high-quality corner threes and attacking closeouts with purpose. His tremendous weak-side help defense and high-motor hustle plays perfectly complemented his revitalized offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Tre Jones 25.0m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.5

A sudden loss of touch around the floater range derailed his offensive rhythm, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. Although he scrambled well on defense and generated deflections, the sheer volume of missed shots stalled the offense and tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zach Collins 19.9m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.8

Dominated his frontcourt matchups by seamlessly blending physical interior play with floor-stretching perimeter touch. His elite rim deterrence and high-quality shot selection completely stifled the opponent's bench units, resulting in a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jalen Smith 16.8m
5
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Overcame a dreadful shooting night by transforming into an absolute terror on the glass and as a rim protector. His willingness to embrace the dirty work and generate crucial hustle plays drove a highly positive impact despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +12.7
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Dalen Terry 13.6m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.9

Essentially invisible during his floor time, failing to generate any meaningful offensive gravity or defensive disruption. His inability to impact the game's rhythm or create advantages on the wing resulted in empty possessions and a severely detrimental net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Received only a brief rotational cameo, spending his minutes primarily as a cardio participant. Failed to register any significant actions on either end of the floor before being subbed out, leaving his impact slightly negative due to minor defensive missteps.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -0.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0