Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 164 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 10/24 -3.2
White Hard 7/18 -1.2
Simons Hard 8/13 +8.3
Garza Open 7/8 +4.7
Pritchard Hard 2/8 -2.6
Queta Open 3/6 -1.1
Walsh Hard 2/3 +2.7
Hauser Hard 0/2 -1.9
Minott 0/2 -2.3
González Hard 1/1 +1.9

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Wagner 5/17 -8.6
Banchero Hard 9/16 +2.5
Carter Jr. 4/10 -1.7
da Silva Hard 4/9 +0.8
Bane 4/9 -2.1
Suggs 6/8 +5.2
Black Hard 2/7 -3.3
Bitadze Open 1/2 -0.8
Isaac Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
ORL
40/85 Field Goals 35/79
47.1% Field Goal % 44.3%
13/33 3-Pointers 7/30
39.4% 3-Point % 23.3%
18/25 Free Throws 30/32
72.0% Free Throw % 93.8%
57.8% True Shooting % 57.5%
49 Total Rebounds 50
13 Offensive 12
28 Defensive 30
22 Assists 21
1.57 Assist/TO Ratio 1.24
14 Turnovers 17
10 Steals 8
2 Blocks 4
27 Fouls 24
42 Points in Paint 50
14 Fast Break Pts 15
29 Points off TOs 15
18 Second Chance Pts 17
50 Bench Points 18
11 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Suggs
20 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 28.6 MIN
+23.13
2
Franz Wagner
20 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 37.2 MIN
+19.47
3
Luka Garza
16 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 17.0 MIN
+18.23
4
Anfernee Simons
25 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 22.7 MIN
+16.46
5
Derrick White
21 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 36.4 MIN
+15.2
6
Jordan Walsh
6 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 25.5 MIN
+12.33
7
Paolo Banchero
28 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 34.6 MIN
+10.41
8
Tristan da Silva
12 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 23.0 MIN
+10.27
9
Jaylen Brown
27 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 33.6 MIN
+10.12
10
Hugo González
3 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 12.6 MIN
+6.45
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:04 F. Wagner Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 111–107
Q4 0:04 F. Wagner Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 111–106
Q4 0:04 J. Brown take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Wagner 2 FT) 111–105
Q4 0:06 D. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 111–105
Q4 0:06 TEAM offensive REBOUND 110–105
Q4 0:06 MISS D. White Free Throw 1 of 2 110–105
Q4 0:06 W. Carter Jr. loose ball personal FOUL (5 PF) (White 2 FT) 110–105
Q4 0:06 TEAM defensive REBOUND 110–105
Q4 0:08 MISS P. Banchero 25' step back 3PT 110–105
Q4 0:13 J. Walsh 24' 3PT (6 PTS) (P. Pritchard 5 AST) 110–105
Q4 0:32 J. Suggs Layup (20 PTS) (D. Bane 6 AST) 107–105
Q4 0:34 TEAM offensive REBOUND 107–103
Q4 0:36 MISS W. Carter Jr. 26' 3PT 107–103
Q4 0:45 D. White 25' 3PT (20 PTS) (J. Walsh 4 AST) 107–103
Q4 0:59 P. Banchero 11' turnaround Jump Shot (28 PTS) 104–103

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 Franz Wagner 37.2m
20
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.0

Overcame a dreadful shooting night by relentlessly attacking the glass and generating extra possessions through pure hustle. His stellar weak-side defensive rotations ensured he remained a massive net positive despite the clunky offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 35.3m
9
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.2

Uncharacteristic passivity severely damaged the offensive flow, as he routinely passed up open looks and failed to pressure the defense. Without his usual scoring gravity to warp the floor, the spacing collapsed and his overall impact plummeted.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paolo Banchero 34.6m
28
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Empty scoring volume masked a surprisingly negative overall impact. He settled for too many contested perimeter looks and consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts, giving away points on defense as quickly as he generated them.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +22.9
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Strong interior defense was completely overshadowed by offensive clunkiness and poor spacing. He repeatedly clogged the driving lanes for the guards and forced up ill-advised perimeter shots that stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 28.6m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+23.1

Put on an absolute masterclass in two-way impact, suffocating opposing ball-handlers while scoring with surgical efficiency. His relentless point-of-attack pressure and perfectly timed transition leaks completely broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +17.9
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Provided a steadying, low-mistake presence on the wing that kept the second unit organized. His timely weak-side cuts and disciplined closeouts on shooters resulted in a fundamentally sound, if unspectacular, shift.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Brought excellent energy and active hands to the defensive end, but his offensive limitations were glaring. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which bogged down halfcourt execution and resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -51.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 14.9m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Anchored the paint effectively during his brief stint by deterring drivers and securing contested rebounds. He didn't need touches to be valuable, using his sheer size and verticality to disrupt the opponent's interior gameplan.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Tyus Jones 10.2m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.0

Operated as a complete non-factor, failing to attempt a single shot or generate any defensive disruption. His extreme passivity allowed the opposing defense to effectively play five-on-four whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a very brief cameo appearance. He was a step slow on defensive rotations and failed to leave any meaningful imprint before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -122.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 0.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Only saw the floor for a few seconds of garbage time. Did not have enough runway to impact the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.2m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -1.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 36.4m
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.9

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays defined this standout performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm while simultaneously breaking out of a recent scoring slump with aggressive, decisive drives to the basket.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 33.6m
27
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.9

Despite shouldering a massive offensive load, his overall impact was muted by poor shot selection and a heavy volume of missed jumpers. Strong hustle metrics and decent rotational defense kept his final rating barely above water. He forced the issue too often in isolation sets rather than letting the game come to him.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.9%
USG% 38.8%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
5
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-16.5

Impact cratered due to a disastrous perimeter shooting night that stalled the offense's momentum. Unable to replicate his recent scoring surge, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Neemias Queta 25.7m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A lack of defensive presence in the paint severely undercut his value during his minutes on the floor. While he converted his limited interior looks, he failed to alter shots at the rim or generate the secondary rim protection needed to anchor the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense -7.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Josh Minott 16.0m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan after a strong recent stretch of double-digit scoring. His defensive positioning remained solid, but failing to pressure the rim or draw fouls dragged his overall value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 25.6m
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.4

Thrived as a low-usage connector by making the most of his spot-up opportunities and playing menacing on-ball defense. His willingness to dive for loose balls and disrupt passing lanes perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +3.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
25
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.8

Blistering perimeter shot-making fueled a highly productive offensive shift. However, his overall rating was dragged down slightly by poor screen navigation on the defensive end, giving back several easy buckets to opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Sam Hauser 17.4m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Ghosted the offense entirely, failing to provide the floor-spacing gravity that usually makes him valuable. Even though his defensive rotations were crisp, being a complete non-threat on the perimeter severely handicapped the team's halfcourt sets.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 17.0m
16
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.5

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He punished mismatches on the block with ruthless efficiency, capitalizing on every rotational mistake the defense made.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +9.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Defensive intensity was the calling card during this brief rotation stint. He locked down the perimeter and blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions, easily offsetting his minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +82.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1