Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead PHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHI 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 182 attempts

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey Hard 13/31 -0.1
Edgecombe 6/15 -0.3
Grimes 3/10 -3.5
Barlow Open 4/8 -0.1
Edwards Hard 4/7 +3.9
Drummond 5/6 +4.7
Watford 2/5 -1.2
Oubre Jr. 1/5 -3.4
Bona Open 1/2 -0.8
Walker Hard 0/1 -1.1

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Jenkins Hard 6/15 +3.6
Holland II 4/15 -8.7
Green Hard 5/12 +0.1
Robinson 5/12 -0.3
Stewart 6/11 +0.1
Reed 5/9 -0.2
LeVert 5/8 +4.5
Lanier Hard 2/6 -0.4
Moore Jr. 2/3 +0.5
Klintman Open 1/1 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHI
DET
39/90 Field Goals 41/92
43.3% Field Goal % 44.6%
14/39 3-Pointers 17/41
35.9% 3-Point % 41.5%
13/15 Free Throws 15/18
86.7% Free Throw % 83.3%
54.3% True Shooting % 57.0%
56 Total Rebounds 51
13 Offensive 13
33 Defensive 33
19 Assists 32
1.27 Assist/TO Ratio 2.29
15 Turnovers 13
9 Steals 9
4 Blocks 7
20 Fouls 17
44 Points in Paint 46
20 Fast Break Pts 12
15 Points off TOs 20
19 Second Chance Pts 13
36 Bench Points 40
12 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyrese Maxey
31 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 39.6 MIN
+21.53
2
Javonte Green
21 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 36.7 MIN
+19.79
3
Duncan Robinson
15 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 31.5 MIN
+15.31
4
Daniss Jenkins
19 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 35.1 MIN
+14.22
5
Paul Reed
10 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 25.1 MIN
+13.3
6
Andre Drummond
12 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 35.7 MIN
+12.82
7
Dominick Barlow
10 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 28.9 MIN
+11.89
8
Caris LeVert
14 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 22.9 MIN
+11.61
9
VJ Edgecombe
18 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 37.5 MIN
+10.76
10
Isaiah Stewart
14 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 22.9 MIN
+9.24
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–114
Q4 0:01 MISS T. Maxey 26' running pullup 3PT 105–114
Q4 0:03 T. Maxey REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 105–114
Q4 0:06 MISS I. Stewart pullup 3PT 105–114
Q4 0:12 W. Moore Jr. REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 105–114
Q4 0:15 MISS D. Jenkins 26' pullup 3PT 105–114
Q4 0:26 J. Green REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 105–114
Q4 0:30 MISS Q. Grimes driving reverse Layup 105–114
Q4 0:34 C. LeVert personal FOUL (2 PF) 105–114
Q4 0:34 TEAM defensive REBOUND 105–114
Q4 0:36 MISS J. Green 3PT 105–114
Q4 0:56 T. Maxey take personal FOUL (2 PF) 105–114
Q4 1:02 I. Stewart REBOUND (Off:3 Def:4) 105–114
Q4 1:05 MISS D. Barlow 3PT 105–114
Q4 1:13 A. Drummond REBOUND (Off:4 Def:7) 105–114

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

DET Detroit Pistons
S Javonte Green 36.7m
21
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.0

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and aggressive drives that drew contact fueled a massive spike in his overall impact. Even with streaky perimeter execution, his ability to generate extra possessions through sheer hustle completely tilted the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +6.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Daniss Jenkins 35.1m
19
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.2

Lethal execution from beyond the arc punished defenders who went under screens, driving a strong positive rating. However, his struggles to convert in traffic inside the paint prevented his overall impact from climbing even higher.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 31.5m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Constant off-ball movement warped the opponent's defensive shell, creating driving lanes for teammates even when he didn't touch the ball. Surprisingly robust closeouts and active hands on defense elevated his rating well beyond just his perimeter gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paul Reed 25.1m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Operating as a highly disruptive force in the passing lanes drove his elite defensive metrics. He maintained his recent trend of clinical interior finishing, capitalizing on dump-off passes to anchor a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Forcing contested looks at the rim severely damaged his offensive value and overall rating. Despite providing excellent point-of-attack defense and generating deflections, his inability to finish through contact negated those stops.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Bullying his way to efficient looks in the post kept his offensive metrics afloat. Unfortunately, sluggish lateral rotations on defense allowed guards to turn the corner repeatedly, flattening his overall impact to near neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 22.9m
14
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.1

Slicing through drop coverage for efficient perimeter looks provided a much-needed offensive spark. The scoring efficiency was pristine, but a lack of secondary defensive efforts kept his net rating from reflecting his true offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Chaz Lanier 18.7m
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Settling exclusively for perimeter jumpers made his offensive profile too predictable, allowing the defense to stay home on shooters. While he saw a slight scoring bump compared to recent outings, his lack of rim pressure resulted in a net negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +43.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Passive offensive positioning allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint. Failing to assert himself or generate meaningful defensive pressure rendered his nearly twenty minutes of court time highly detrimental to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +64.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Blown assignments in pick-and-roll coverage during a brief stint on the floor quickly tanked his defensive rating. Even with perfect shooting on a single attempt, the defensive breakdowns made his short shift a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.6m
31
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.0

Heavy shot volume and poor perimeter selection suppressed what could have been a monster statistical night. However, relentless point-of-attack defense and constant downhill pressure in transition kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 13/31 (41.9%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +18.8
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +8.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S VJ Edgecombe 37.5m
18
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Perimeter shot-making inflated his box score, masking severe struggles to finish inside the arc against set defenses. The resulting empty possessions and subsequent transition opportunities for the opponent drove his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 35.7m
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Dominant rim protection and highly efficient finishing fueled a massive positive swing in his impact metrics. Stepping outside to knock down a pair of unexpected perimeter shots completely warped the opponent's defensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +14.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 14.9m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

A sharp deviation from his recent efficient scoring trend dragged down his overall rating. While his defensive engagement and hustle metrics remained strong, an inability to convert looks in the half-court ultimately resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trendon Watford 14.3m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

Stagnant offensive possessions and missed perimeter looks severely hampered his overall rating despite adequate defensive positioning. He struggled to replicate his usual interior efficiency, leading to empty trips that allowed opponents to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -49.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

Clanking a high volume of spot-up looks completely derailed the team's half-court rhythm. Breaking a recent streak of high-efficiency shooting, these forced perimeter attempts fueled opponent run-outs and tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Consistent execution in the pick-and-pop game stretched the opposing frontcourt and generated a solid positive rating. His disciplined closeouts and reliable positional defense further stabilized the second unit during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

A sudden surge in perimeter shot-making couldn't entirely offset his defensive lapses. Poor closeout angles and a complete lack of secondary hustle plays allowed opponents to exploit his matchups, resulting in a slightly negative net score.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Complete offensive invisibility during his rotation minutes dragged down his overall score. While his defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, the inability to apply any pressure on the other end created a functional disadvantage.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 9.2m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Short bursts of high-energy rim running and active hands generated a modest but positive net rating. He executed his role perfectly in a limited window, avoiding costly mistakes while providing reliable weak-side help.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0