Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 167 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. Hard 10/23 -0.7
Claxton Open 6/12 -2.7
Williams 6/11 +1.7
Mann 5/10 +2.2
Dëmin 2/9 -4.7
Clowney Hard 2/8 -2.2
Martin 2/7 -3.5
Powell Open 3/5 +0.4
Sharpe Open 2/4 -0.8

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Bane 7/18 -2.5
Wagner 7/17 -1.2
da Silva Hard 8/14 +5.7
Suggs Hard 5/11 +0.3
Howard Hard 2/4 +2.0
Bitadze Open 3/4 +0.6
Black 1/4 -2.3
Isaac Open 2/2 +1.2
Carter Jr. 1/2 -0.2
Jones 0/2 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
ORL
38/89 Field Goals 36/78
42.7% Field Goal % 46.2%
10/39 3-Pointers 15/39
25.6% 3-Point % 38.5%
12/16 Free Throws 18/21
75.0% Free Throw % 85.7%
51.0% True Shooting % 60.2%
42 Total Rebounds 60
7 Offensive 7
27 Defensive 39
23 Assists 21
3.29 Assist/TO Ratio 1.11
5 Turnovers 19
9 Steals 3
4 Blocks 5
19 Fouls 16
50 Points in Paint 38
11 Fast Break Pts 20
21 Points off TOs 6
5 Second Chance Pts 25
29 Bench Points 18
16 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Michael Porter Jr.
24 PTS · 11 REB · 7 AST · 36.0 MIN
+21.65
2
Tristan da Silva
22 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 32.5 MIN
+14.61
3
Ziaire Williams
15 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 36.1 MIN
+13.47
4
Nic Claxton
13 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 33.8 MIN
+11.84
5
Franz Wagner
25 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 37.1 MIN
+11.57
6
Drake Powell
6 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 22.3 MIN
+10.1
7
Day'Ron Sharpe
4 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 14.2 MIN
+7.32
8
Goga Bitadze
6 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 16.2 MIN
+6.91
9
Terance Mann
12 PTS · 0 REB · 0 AST · 28.1 MIN
+6.79
10
Tyus Jones
0 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 13.1 MIN
+6.54
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 TEAM offensive REBOUND 98–105
Q4 0:01 BKN Heave 98–105
Q4 0:03 M. Porter Jr. REBOUND (Off:1 Def:10) 98–105
Q4 0:03 MISS F. Wagner 26' 3PT 98–105
Q4 0:10 J. Suggs REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 98–105
Q4 0:13 MISS T. Mann 25' step back 3PT 98–105
Q4 0:23 D. Bane Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 98–105
Q4 0:23 D. Bane Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 98–104
Q4 0:23 T. Mann personal FOUL (4 PF) (Bane 2 FT) 98–103
Q4 0:26 F. Wagner REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 98–103
Q4 0:26 MISS N. Claxton tip Layup 98–103
Q4 0:28 N. Claxton REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 98–103
Q4 0:29 MISS M. Porter Jr. 3PT 98–103
Q4 0:45 F. Wagner 25' 3PT step back (25 PTS) 98–103
Q4 1:03 J. Suggs REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 98–100

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

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 39.9m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

A brutal combination of eleven missed shots and poor decision-making in traffic completely torpedoed his overall score. He repeatedly tried to shoot his way out of a slump, resulting in contested, low-quality looks early in the clock. While he competed reasonably well on defense, the offensive inefficiency was far too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Franz Wagner 37.1m
25
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.0

Heavy offensive volume masked a highly inefficient night where ten missed shots and forced drives bled significant value. His defensive impact was surprisingly pedestrian, as he frequently got caught dying on screens. Despite carrying the creation burden, the sheer number of empty possessions ultimately dragged him into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
22
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.1

Lethal spacing and quick-trigger shooting punished the defense for over-helping, driving a stellar offensive impact. He supplemented his perimeter barrage with smart closeout attacks and solid weak-side rotations to disrupt passing lanes. This was a textbook 3-and-D performance that stretched the floor while maintaining defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Extremely low offensive usage limited his upside, but he compensated with bruising screens and excellent box-outs to secure extra possessions. He anchored the drop coverage well, funneling drivers toward help defenders effectively. Surviving purely on the margins, he did the dirty work without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 28.2m
14
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.0

Reckless closeouts and defensive gambles compromised the team's scheme, reflected in an unusually low defensive rating for his standards. Five missed threes further depressed his value, as he frequently settled for pull-ups rather than attacking the rim. His trademark hustle was present, but it couldn't mask the overall lack of discipline.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.4

Passive offensive play and an inability to bend the defense resulted in a severely stagnant half-court offense during his minutes. He failed to make any measurable impact on the defensive end, repeatedly allowing straight-line drives without offering resistance. It was a completely flat performance where he floated on the perimeter and bled value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 16.2m
6
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Elite rim protection defined his minutes, as he altered numerous shots in the paint without committing cheap fouls. He played perfectly within himself offensively, converting simple dump-offs and avoiding costly turnovers. This was a highly disciplined interior performance that effectively stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Wreaking havoc as a weak-side roamer, he utilized his immense wingspan to close passing windows and challenge shooters. He was perfectly efficient on his limited offensive touches, taking only what the defense conceded. High-level defensive instincts and mistake-free basketball drove a very solid rating in a short burst.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyus Jones 13.2m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Despite failing to register a single point, his phenomenal point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm. He navigated screens flawlessly and generated immense pressure on the ball handler to force late-clock situations. This was a rare instance where elite defensive execution completely overrides an invisible offensive output.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +7.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Providing a quick injection of spacing, he capitalized on defensive rotations by knocking down a pair of catch-and-shoot threes. However, he was a complete non-factor on the other end of the floor, offering zero resistance at the point of attack. It was a purely one-dimensional stint that barely kept his head above water.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 0.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Only saw the floor for a brief 27-second cameo at the end of a quarter. There was simply not enough time to generate any meaningful statistical impact or alter the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
24
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+25.3

Despite clanking eight attempts from beyond the arc, his playmaking gravity created secondary actions all night to drive a massive box impact. Strong defensive rotations (+6.5) helped mitigate the perimeter shooting struggles. The sheer volume of missed jumpers kept his overall rating from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +11.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nic Claxton 33.8m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.9

Elite hustle metrics highlight a relentless effort on the offensive glass and in 50/50 loose-ball situations. He anchored the interior defense effectively, using his length to disrupt pick-and-roll actions. His ability to seamlessly switch onto guards late in the fourth quarter cemented a highly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Terance Mann 28.1m
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A highly opportunistic offensive approach kept him above water, capitalizing perfectly on spot-up chances when the defense collapsed. His defensive impact was unusually muted, struggling to navigate through off-ball screens. Ultimately, a lack of aggression in attacking closeouts limited his overall ceiling in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -41.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 27.2m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Poor shot selection from the perimeter cratered his offensive value, as he repeatedly settled for contested looks early in the clock. He managed to salvage his overall rating slightly through active hands in the passing lanes and solid weak-side rim protection. Still, the wasted possessions ultimately pushed him into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 18.1m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Brick after brick from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive rating, wasting valuable possessions in half-court sets. He struggled to stay in front of his primary assignment, offering minimal resistance at the point of attack. This combination of forced jumpers and defensive passivity resulted in a decisively negative outing.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Smothering perimeter defense was the catalyst for his positive impact, as he completely erased his matchup in isolation sets. He generated crucial extra possessions through excellent hustle, frequently winning the race to long rebounds. While he settled for a few too many contested outside looks, his two-way energy was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Offensive ineptitude tanked his score, driven by forced perimeter shots and an inability to finish through contact. He worked hard defensively and brought good energy to loose balls, but it couldn't offset the dead-end possessions. His struggles to space the floor allowed the opposition to aggressively pack the paint during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 22.3m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Excellent shot discipline and timely baseline cutting maximized his limited offensive touches. He made his real mark on the other end of the floor, consistently blowing up dribble hand-offs to stifle the opponent's rhythm. A highly efficient, mistake-free stint defined his positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Dominating the painted area in short bursts, he utilized his frame to seal off defenders and create high-percentage looks. His positional discipline on defense successfully deterred several drives, forcing kick-outs instead of layups. This was a highly effective rotational stint characterized by knowing his role and executing it without mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0