Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CLE lead CHA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHA 2P — 3P —
CLE 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 193 attempts

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Miller Hard 8/23 -1.2
Knueppel 11/19 +5.0
Bridges 7/19 -2.4
James Hard 3/9 -0.1
Simpson Hard 2/9 -3.6
Green Hard 3/6 +1.1
Kalkbrenner Open 3/4 +0.6
Salaün 2/3 +0.9
Diabaté Open 2/3 -0.2
Plumlee Open 2/2 +1.2

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell Hard 6/24 -11.1
Garland 8/19 -0.6
Tyson Open 6/13 -2.0
Wade 5/9 +2.3
Ball Hard 3/8 -1.5
Allen Open 3/8 -3.8
Hunter 1/7 -5.7
Bryant Open 3/4 +1.7
Tomlin Open 3/3 +3.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHA
CLE
43/98 Field Goals 38/95
43.9% Field Goal % 40.0%
17/44 3-Pointers 12/38
38.6% 3-Point % 31.6%
16/21 Free Throws 23/29
76.2% Free Throw % 79.3%
55.5% True Shooting % 51.5%
67 Total Rebounds 56
12 Offensive 13
41 Defensive 33
28 Assists 27
1.56 Assist/TO Ratio 1.93
16 Turnovers 14
9 Steals 10
7 Blocks 3
26 Fouls 24
50 Points in Paint 50
14 Fast Break Pts 8
26 Points off TOs 18
20 Second Chance Pts 7
29 Bench Points 41
17 Largest Lead 5
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kon Knueppel
29 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 43.8 MIN
+20.62
2
Lonzo Ball
8 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 31.9 MIN
+15.75
3
Brandon Miller
25 PTS · 13 REB · 6 AST · 38.9 MIN
+15.26
4
Darius Garland
26 PTS · 2 REB · 9 AST · 39.4 MIN
+15.02
5
Dean Wade
14 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 31.6 MIN
+14.76
6
Miles Bridges
20 PTS · 10 REB · 6 AST · 39.4 MIN
+14.72
7
Jaylon Tyson
16 PTS · 13 REB · 1 AST · 35.5 MIN
+14.22
8
Thomas Bryant
10 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 14.2 MIN
+10.14
9
Mason Plumlee
4 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 10.4 MIN
+8.0
10
Josh Green
8 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 15.0 MIN
+7.53
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q5 0:01 B. Miller REBOUND (Off:5 Def:8) 119–111
Q5 0:05 MISS D. Garland 25' 3PT 119–111
Q5 0:08 K. Knueppel Free Throw 2 of 2 (29 PTS) 119–111
Q5 0:08 K. Knueppel Free Throw 1 of 2 (28 PTS) 118–111
Q5 0:08 J. Tyson personal FOUL (5 PF) (Knueppel 2 FT) 117–111
Q5 0:09 T. Salaün REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 117–111
Q5 0:10 MISS D. Mitchell 26' turnaround 3PT 117–111
Q5 0:17 T. Salaün Free Throw 2 of 2 (6 PTS) 117–111
Q5 0:17 T. Salaün Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 116–111
Q5 0:17 J. Tyson personal FOUL (4 PF) (Salaün 2 FT) 115–111
Q5 0:20 D. Garland personal FOUL (2 PF) 115–111
Q5 0:23 K. Knueppel STEAL (1 STL) 115–111
Q5 0:23 D. Garland lost ball TURNOVER (4 TO) 115–111
Q5 0:27 K. Knueppel personal FOUL (5 PF) 115–111
Q5 0:27 J. Tyson REBOUND (Off:3 Def:10) 115–111

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

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Darius Garland 39.4m
26
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.2

High-level pick-and-roll orchestration kept the offense humming, offsetting a mediocre shooting night. His active hands in the passing lanes disrupted multiple entry passes to spark transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
17
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.4

An abysmal perimeter shooting display severely damaged his team's offensive efficiency. Despite generating immense pressure with his hustle, settling for heavily contested isolation threes ultimately sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/24 (25.0%)
3PT 1/11 (9.1%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.4%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dean Wade 31.6m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Exceptional weak-side help defense and relentless activity on loose balls drove a massive positive rating. His perfectly timed cuts along the baseline punished defenders who fell asleep off the ball.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Andre Hunter 26.5m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

A disastrous shooting performance and an inability to create separation absolutely cratered his value. He routinely forced contested midrange looks against set defenders, stalling out the offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 22.9m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing through contact at the rim dragged down his usually stellar efficiency. Opposing bigs successfully pushed his catch points further from the basket, neutralizing his lob threat.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylon Tyson 35.5m
16
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.2

Relentless glass-cleaning and high-motor closeouts fueled a highly productive two-way showing. He consistently outworked his primary matchup for second-chance opportunities, tilting the possession battle.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +16.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 31.9m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.7

Elite point-of-attack defense and brilliant rotational awareness completely shut down the opponent's perimeter attack. He consistently blew up dribble-handoff actions before they could even materialize, masking his quiet offensive output.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +11.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Bully-ball tactics in the post and decisive rolls to the rim generated highly efficient offense. He established deep post position early in the shot clock, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Flawless finishing around the basket maximized his short burst of playing time. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications by slipping screens for easy, uncontested dunks.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.6

A lack of offensive assertiveness rendered him largely invisible during his short run. He failed to pressure the rim or collapse the defense, leading to stagnant perimeter passing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +49.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.6

Poor spatial awareness and defensive mistimings quickly pushed his brief stint into the negative. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, allowing straight-line drives to the basket.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -87.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 43.8m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.4

Elite shot selection and off-ball movement drove a massive positive impact, capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot looks. His relentless closeouts on the perimeter padded his strong hustle metrics to anchor the blowout.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.8m
Scoring +23.1
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 39.4m
20
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.8

Defensive versatility anchored his positive overall score despite a highly inefficient shooting night. He consistently blew up opponent dribble hand-offs, though forced isolation jumpers capped his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +11.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 38.9m
25
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.2

High-volume bricklaying dragged his net impact into the red despite strong rebounding positioning. Settling for contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock negated the value of his physical aggression.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +16.5
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Sion James 37.1m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Offensive stagnation and poor finishing at the rim severely punished his overall rating. He repeatedly stalled transition opportunities by holding the ball too long, allowing the defense to set.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Elite rim protection and vertical spacing fueled a highly efficient two-way stint. He completely deterred drivers from entering the paint, maximizing his value in limited minutes without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Defensive lapses in drop coverage bled points and tanked his overall impact. Opposing guards repeatedly exploited his slow lateral rotations out of the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
KJ Simpson 19.1m
6
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.6

Errant perimeter shooting and forced drives completely derailed the offensive flow during his shifts. While his point-of-attack defense was disruptive, the empty possessions on the other end were simply too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Green 14.9m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Timely backdoor cuts and opportunistic spot-up shooting provided a quick offensive spark. His ability to navigate screens and chase shooters off the line added quiet defensive value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Passive offensive positioning and a failure to secure loose balls limited his effectiveness. He struggled to establish physical leverage against bigger forwards in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Crisp dribble hand-offs and sturdy screen-setting lubricated the offense perfectly during his rotation. He walled off the restricted area beautifully, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +49.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

A brief, largely invisible stint left minimal footprint on the game's outcome. He simply filled space on the floor without generating any distinct advantages or glaring mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0