Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead LAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAC 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

LAC LAC Shot-making Δ

Harden 7/25 -11.3
Zubac Open 7/13 -1.4
Sanders Hard 5/11 +2.0
Bogdanović Hard 3/9 -1.7
Collins 3/8 -2.5
Batum Hard 3/7 +1.4
Dunn 3/5 +1.7
Lopez Hard 2/5 +0.1
Paul Hard 1/2 +1.3
Christie Hard 1/2 +0.2

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 13/27 +2.3
Edgecombe Hard 6/13 +1.0
Grimes 6/10 +3.0
George Hard 2/9 -3.6
Drummond Open 5/8 +0.4
Watford Open 4/6 +0.9
Edwards Hard 0/6 -6.4
Barlow Open 3/4 +1.2
Walker Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAC
PHI
35/87 Field Goals 39/84
40.2% Field Goal % 46.4%
12/39 3-Pointers 11/33
30.8% 3-Point % 33.3%
26/27 Free Throws 21/30
96.3% Free Throw % 70.0%
54.6% True Shooting % 56.6%
49 Total Rebounds 60
8 Offensive 9
37 Defensive 37
18 Assists 26
1.80 Assist/TO Ratio 2.89
10 Turnovers 9
6 Steals 7
3 Blocks 4
26 Fouls 20
42 Points in Paint 50
14 Fast Break Pts 15
12 Points off TOs 8
14 Second Chance Pts 19
31 Bench Points 27
13 Largest Lead 5
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyrese Maxey
39 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 41.0 MIN
+24.04
2
Andre Drummond
14 PTS · 18 REB · 0 AST · 37.9 MIN
+20.38
3
Ivica Zubac
14 PTS · 13 REB · 1 AST · 33.9 MIN
+20.07
4
Quentin Grimes
19 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 35.6 MIN
+19.29
5
James Harden
28 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 36.8 MIN
+13.05
6
Kobe Sanders
17 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 30.4 MIN
+10.09
7
VJ Edgecombe
14 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 37.3 MIN
+8.17
8
Nicolas Batum
11 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 20.8 MIN
+7.9
9
Bogdan Bogdanović
9 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 26.5 MIN
+7.5
10
Trendon Watford
8 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 18.9 MIN
+7.2
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 T. Watford REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 108–110
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Harden 3PT 108–110
Q4 0:01 J. Harden REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 108–110
Q4 0:06 MISS J. Harden 26' step back 3PT 108–110
Q4 0:11 K. Dunn STEAL (1 STL) 108–110
Q4 0:11 T. Maxey lost ball TURNOVER (4 TO) 108–110
Q4 0:13 K. Sanders Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 108–110
Q4 0:13 K. Sanders Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 107–110
Q4 0:13 V. Edgecombe shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Sanders 2 FT) 106–110
Q4 0:17 J. Harden STEAL (1 STL) 106–110
Q4 0:17 T. Maxey bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 106–110
Q4 0:28 V. Edgecombe REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 106–110
Q4 0:31 MISS Q. Grimes 25' 3PT 106–110
Q4 0:49 A. Drummond REBOUND (Off:5 Def:13) 106–110
Q4 0:52 MISS K. Sanders 27' 3PT 106–110

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 41.0m
39
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+24.3

Blistering downhill speed shattered the opponent's point-of-attack defense all night long. His ability to consistently break the paint forced over-helps, generating high-quality looks and driving a stellar overall rating despite some forced perimeter attempts.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Scoring +28.7
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +8.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Andre Drummond 37.9m
14
pts
18
reb
0
ast
Impact
+25.2

Absolute domination of the painted area completely suffocated the opponent's interior game. By swallowing up every available defensive board and anchoring the paint, he prevented second-chance points and generated a massive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +21.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 37.3m
14
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Poor transition defense and late closeouts severely undermined a solid offensive outing. He routinely lost his man on back-cuts during a critical third-quarter stretch, bleeding easy layups that tanked his overall net score.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense -7.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 21.2m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and disciplined rim-running drove a highly positive hustle rating. He capitalized perfectly on defensive miscommunications, finishing dump-offs with authority to maintain his streak of elite efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -34.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 21.1m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

An inability to create separation against primary defenders led to a stagnant, isolation-heavy offensive performance. While his length disrupted passing lanes on defense, the sheer volume of forced, clanking jumpers severely damaged the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 37.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.1

Elite point-of-attack defense and decisive spot-up shooting created a massive two-way footprint. By locking down the perimeter and punishing late closeouts without hesitation, he provided the ultimate 3-and-D performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Smart cutting and decisive quick-decisions out of the short roll kept the offensive machinery humming. He found the soft spots in the zone defense seamlessly, providing just enough connective tissue to stay in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.6

A complete lack of offensive rhythm derailed his stint, as he repeatedly bricked wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to clog the driving lanes and stall the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring -5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Completely invisible during his short time on the floor, failing to register any meaningful actions. The offense bogged down with him running the point, resulting in empty possessions that dragged down his net score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -1.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.9

A brief and disjointed stint was marred by poor spacing and an inability to get into the flow of the offense. He was caught ball-watching on a pair of defensive possessions, leading to quick scores that pushed his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 36.8m
28
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.0

Brutal shot selection and a heavy volume of clanked perimeter attempts completely negated his high scoring output. The sheer number of empty possessions allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, dragging his overall impact into the red despite solid defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/25 (28.0%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +4.5
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Ivica Zubac 33.9m
14
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

Dominant interior positioning dictated the flow of the game and anchored a massive positive impact. His ability to secure contested rebounds and alter shots in the paint completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack during the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +16.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kobe Sanders 30.4m
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Perimeter aggression defined his night, as an unexpected scoring surge forced defensive rotations and opened up spacing. While his shot-making generated a strong offensive footprint, slight defensive give-backs on closeouts kept his overall net impact barely above water.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S John Collins 27.2m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

A noticeable dip in finishing efficiency at the rim dragged down his overall value. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups, leading to forced attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 27.1m
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.7

Despite finding an offensive rhythm above his usual baseline, hidden negatives like poor rotational positioning cratered his net score. A tendency to over-help on drives left shooters open in the corners, bleeding points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.7

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers short-circuited offensive momentum. Although he displayed active hands in passing lanes to boost his defensive metrics, the missed outside shots consistently sparked fast breaks the other way.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Timely weak-side rotations and veteran positioning kept his impact in the green. A sudden resurgence in floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, perfectly illustrating his glue-guy value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 14.0m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

A lack of mobility in drop coverage was repeatedly exploited by high pick-and-rolls during his brief stint on the floor. Unable to generate his usual offensive gravity, his inability to contest quick guards on the perimeter resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 12.0m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Floating on the perimeter without demanding defensive attention allowed opponents to play five-on-four. His complete lack of offensive involvement resulted in dead possessions, sinking his net rating despite adequate individual defense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Chris Paul 11.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Defensive limitations at the point of attack were glaringly obvious during his short shift. Opposing guards easily bypassed his initial pressure, forcing the defense into scramble mode and tanking his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0