Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 186 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram 7/17 -3.4
Quickley Hard 8/16 +4.8
Barnes Hard 7/14 +2.6
Barrett 7/12 +2.8
Shead Hard 3/7 +1.6
Murray-Boyles Open 4/6 +1.7
Walter Hard 1/6 -3.2
Dick 1/6 -3.9
Mamukelashvili 3/5 +1.1
Agbaji Hard 0/1 -1.1

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 12/24 +1.9
Embiid Open 10/16 +1.7
Oubre Jr. 8/15 +0.3
Edgecombe 5/15 -6.3
Watford Open 8/10 +4.6
Grimes 4/8 +1.8
Drummond Open 1/5 -3.7
Edwards Hard 1/2 +0.7
Walker Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
PHI
41/90 Field Goals 49/96
45.6% Field Goal % 51.0%
16/38 3-Pointers 10/35
42.1% 3-Point % 28.6%
22/28 Free Throws 22/28
78.6% Free Throw % 78.6%
58.6% True Shooting % 60.0%
47 Total Rebounds 63
10 Offensive 15
28 Defensive 39
29 Assists 31
2.64 Assist/TO Ratio 2.21
10 Turnovers 13
7 Steals 4
5 Blocks 9
25 Fouls 22
38 Points in Paint 64
36 Fast Break Pts 15
19 Points off TOs 15
15 Second Chance Pts 22
37 Bench Points 20
14 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Trendon Watford
20 PTS · 17 REB · 10 AST · 36.5 MIN
+28.71
2
Tyrese Maxey
31 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 42.6 MIN
+25.53
3
Joel Embiid
29 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 26.0 MIN
+23.5
4
RJ Barrett
22 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 34.0 MIN
+16.06
5
Immanuel Quickley
22 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 36.2 MIN
+15.72
6
Brandon Ingram
21 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 37.4 MIN
+15.52
7
Scottie Barnes
18 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 31.7 MIN
+14.67
8
Collin Murray-Boyles
12 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 21.7 MIN
+13.79
9
Sandro Mamukelashvili
10 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 17.1 MIN
+13.17
10
Kelly Oubre Jr.
19 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 36.9 MIN
+9.63
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:07 PHI shot clock Team TURNOVER 120–130
Q4 0:29 T. Watford REBOUND (Off:5 Def:12) 120–130
Q4 0:33 MISS I. Quickley 27' 3PT 120–130
Q4 0:39 J. Embiid Free Throw 2 of 2 (29 PTS) 120–130
Q4 0:39 J. Embiid Free Throw 1 of 2 (28 PTS) 120–129
Q4 0:39 R. Barrett shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Embiid 2 FT) 120–128
Q4 0:50 T. Watford REBOUND (Off:5 Def:11) 120–128
Q4 0:51 MISS V. Edgecombe Free Throw 2 of 2 120–128
Q4 0:51 V. Edgecombe Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 120–128
Q4 0:51 S. Barnes personal FOUL (6 PF) (Edgecombe 2 FT) 120–127
Q4 1:10 I. Quickley driving finger roll Layup (22 PTS) 120–127
Q4 1:15 T. Maxey 22' step back Jump Shot (31 PTS) 118–127
Q4 1:33 TOR 5-second-violation Team TURNOVER 118–125
Q4 1:33 TEAM offensive REBOUND 118–125
Q4 1:33 K. Oubre Jr. BLOCK (2 BLK) 118–125

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

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 42.6m
31
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+26.8

Relentless downhill attacks and transition speed constantly put the defense on its heels, driving a highly productive offensive night. He compounded that scoring gravity with excellent effort in tracking down loose balls (+4.2 hustle) and staying attached to shooters on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.6m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 36.9m
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Tunnel vision and forced perimeter looks actively sabotaged the team's offensive rhythm despite his respectable scoring volume. His tendency to stop the ball and launch contested jumpers allowed the opposition to ignite fast breaks, dragging his overall impact deeply into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Trendon Watford 36.5m
20
pts
17
reb
10
ast
Impact
+27.5

A masterful playmaking display from the frontcourt completely fractured the opposing defense, resulting in a staggering positive impact. He dominated the glass and consistently made the right reads out of the short roll, pairing hyper-efficient finishing with elite defensive rebounding (+5.8 defense) to control the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +21.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 35.5m
11
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense (+8.1) was entirely undone by a disastrous offensive showing. His inability to convert at the rim or hit from the perimeter severely cramped the floor, turning his offensive possessions into empty trips that fueled the opponent's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Joel Embiid 25.9m
29
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.4

Absolute dominance in the mid-post commanded constant double-teams, bending the entire defensive scheme to his will. His highly efficient shot-making and steady rim protection (+2.5 defense) overwhelmed his primary matchups, driving a massive positive impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +23.0
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Elite hustle metrics (+5.5) and reliable spot-up spacing couldn't mask his struggles to contain dribble penetration. Opposing wings routinely targeted him in isolation sequences, bleeding points on the defensive end and resulting in a surprisingly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Plagued by heavy feet and rushed hook shots, his inability to finish point-blank looks squandered multiple valuable interior touches. Even with his standard rebounding presence and decent drop coverage (+2.3 defense), his offensive inefficiency dragged the bench unit down.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +7.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Made the most of a short rotational burst by staying disciplined within the defensive scheme (+1.8 defense). His willingness to keep the ball moving and take only high-percentage looks ensured he was a marginal positive during his brief floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -64.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Adem Bona 6.0m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

A brief, offensively invisible rotation stint yielded zero scoring gravity and clogged the paint for the second unit. While he provided a minor rim-protection bump (+1.3 defense), his lack of offensive utility resulted in a slight net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.9

Failed to make a dent offensively during a disjointed five-minute stretch. The offense noticeably stagnated with him on the floor, leading to a quick hook and a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 37.4m
21
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.8

High-volume scoring masked a deeply inefficient shot profile heavily reliant on contested mid-range jumpers. His inability to connect from beyond the arc cramped the floor, ultimately dragging his net impact into the negative despite a significant scoring bump over his recent average.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.7

Searing perimeter shot-making provided a massive offensive lift, but his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive bleed at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently blew past his initial pressure, negating the value of his explosive pull-up shooting stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 34.0m
22
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.1

Bully-ball drives and highly efficient finishing at the rim anchored a strong offensive showing. However, his overall net rating was heavily suppressed by poor screen navigation and late closeouts (-1.1 defense) that routinely compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +18.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 31.7m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Elite two-way engagement drove a massive positive impact, highlighted by exceptional weak-side rotations and disruption in the passing lanes (+6.2 defense). He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort (+6.9 hustle), punishing mismatches in the post to break out of his recent scoring plateau.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 57.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ochai Agbaji 15.1m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.3

Offensive invisibility continues to plague his minutes, extending a brutal shooting slump where he simply cannot generate separation. While he provided a slight boost in loose ball recoveries (+2.4 hustle), his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to freely roam and double-team elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 24.0m
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.4

Despite finding rare success from the perimeter, his offensive initiation was clunky and stalled the team's half-court flow. The negative overall impact stems from poor offensive organization and likely live-ball turnovers that fed directly into opponent transition points.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Sustained interior efficiency combined with elite rim deterrence (+5.2 defense) resulted in a dominant two-way performance. He completely sealed off the paint during his second-half rotation, using his physicality to generate stops and transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Defensive versatility and high-motor rotations (+5.3 defense) defined a wildly successful bench stint. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his constant movement and timely closeouts completely disrupted the opponent's second-unit rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Gradey Dick 11.5m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

Continued perimeter struggles absolutely cratered his offensive value, extending a brutal shooting slump that allowed defenders to completely ignore him. While he showed surprising resistance on the defensive end (+3.7 defense), the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions kept his overall impact deeply negative.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.8

Forced shots early in the clock and an inability to stay in front of his man (-0.8 defense) led to a disastrous brief appearance. His lack of offensive rhythm derailed the second unit's spacing, making him a net negative on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -63.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Registered barely enough floor time to break a sweat during a fleeting end-of-quarter substitution. The fractional negative impact is merely statistical noise from a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -0.8
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0