Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Buzelis 7/16 -1.8
Giddey 8/14 +3.2
Vučević 9/13 +4.9
Dosunmu 6/13 +1.2
Jones 7/10 +4.2
Phillips 4/7 +0.3
Williams Hard 2/7 -1.4
Huerter Hard 0/3 -2.8
Miller Hard 1/2 +0.8
Carter Hard 0/2 -1.9

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Wagner Open 11/18 0.0
Bane 12/17 +9.0
Black 8/15 +1.2
Suggs Hard 3/13 -5.0
Carter Jr. 6/8 +3.9
Bitadze Open 3/5 -0.2
Penda 2/4 +0.5
da Silva Hard 0/4 -3.5
Jones Hard 0/2 -2.2
Isaac Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
ORL
44/88 Field Goals 45/88
50.0% Field Goal % 51.1%
16/37 3-Pointers 9/33
43.2% 3-Point % 27.3%
16/22 Free Throws 26/33
72.7% Free Throw % 78.8%
61.4% True Shooting % 61.0%
48 Total Rebounds 52
10 Offensive 12
33 Defensive 34
30 Assists 25
1.43 Assist/TO Ratio 1.39
20 Turnovers 17
9 Steals 12
4 Blocks 11
23 Fouls 16
54 Points in Paint 62
7 Fast Break Pts 21
19 Points off TOs 25
9 Second Chance Pts 15
39 Bench Points 36
15 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Desmond Bane
37 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 34.5 MIN
+35.1
2
Matas Buzelis
21 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 35.6 MIN
+23.27
3
Nikola Vučević
20 PTS · 11 REB · 5 AST · 34.5 MIN
+23.13
4
Wendell Carter Jr.
17 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 30.3 MIN
+20.98
5
Anthony Black
22 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 33.8 MIN
+20.22
6
Franz Wagner
25 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 32.3 MIN
+18.1
7
Tre Jones
20 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 29.7 MIN
+15.66
8
Goga Bitadze
8 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 17.7 MIN
+13.6
9
Josh Giddey
22 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 35.6 MIN
+12.39
10
Jalen Suggs
10 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 30.0 MIN
+8.92
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 F. Wagner STEAL (2 STL) 120–125
Q4 0:02 A. Dosunmu lost ball TURNOVER (4 TO) 120–125
Q4 0:17 W. Carter Jr. cutting DUNK (17 PTS) (J. Suggs 4 AST) 120–125
Q4 0:24 M. Buzelis driving Layup (21 PTS) (T. Jones 3 AST) 120–123
Q4 0:35 D. Bane Free Throw 2 of 2 (37 PTS) 118–123
Q4 0:35 D. Bane Free Throw 1 of 2 (36 PTS) 118–122
Q4 0:35 A. Dosunmu shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Bane 2 FT) 118–121
Q4 0:47 N. Vučević tip Layup (20 PTS) 118–121
Q4 0:47 N. Vučević REBOUND (Off:4 Def:7) 116–121
Q4 0:51 MISS M. Buzelis 27' 3PT 116–121
Q4 0:56 TEAM offensive REBOUND 116–121
Q4 0:56 A. Black BLOCK (2 BLK) 116–121
Q4 0:56 MISS J. Giddey 26' 3PT - blocked 116–121
Q4 1:06 F. Wagner driving bank Hook (25 PTS) (D. Bane 5 AST) 116–121
Q4 1:21 A. Dosunmu 26' 3PT (18 PTS) (N. Vučević 5 AST) 116–119

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 34.5m
37
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+37.3

An absolute masterclass in shot creation and efficiency propelled his impact score into the stratosphere. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly, converting tough looks at an unsustainable clip to shatter his recent scoring averages. Active hands on defense and consistent hustle plays ensured he was dominating every square inch of the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.4%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +33.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Franz Wagner 32.3m
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Relentless rim pressure and elite finishing inside the arc fueled a massive bounce-back performance. He supplemented his scoring with highly disruptive defense, consistently blowing up opponent actions on the wing. While his deep ball wasn't falling, his sheer downhill aggression dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +19.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.9

Supreme efficiency in the pick-and-roll and stout rim protection resulted in a dominant two-way showing. He refused to waste possessions, taking only high-value looks to extend his streak of hyper-efficient shooting nights. His ability to anchor the paint defensively while serving as a reliable offensive hub drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 30.0m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Horrific shot selection from beyond the arc nearly derailed his night, dragging his box impact into the negative. However, he salvaged his overall value by playing absolute lockdown defense and generating elite hustle plays. His relentless point-of-attack pressure partially neutralized the damage done by his bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.9
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 4
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.7

An uncharacteristic offensive disappearing act completely tanked his overall rating. Despite generating solid hustle metrics and staying engaged defensively, his bricked perimeter shots continually stalled the momentum. The stark drop-off from his normally steady scoring output created a massive void in the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
22
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.4

Slashing to the rim with purpose, he generated a stellar box impact by consistently collapsing the defense. His length bothered ball-handlers all night, leading to a strong defensive rating that bolstered his overall score. He managed the game beautifully, blending aggressive downhill drives with timely perimeter contests.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Tyus Jones 18.7m
0
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.9

A complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes, severely limiting his playmaking effectiveness. While he wasn't a liability on defense, his inability to bend the defense offensively resulted in a stagnant unit. The ongoing shooting slump has turned him into an offensive zero, dragging down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 17.7m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

A towering presence in the paint, his elite rim deterrence completely shut down the opponent's interior attack during his shifts. He capitalized on dump-off passes with high-percentage finishes, doubling his usual offensive output. It was a masterclass in low-usage, high-impact backup center minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
Noah Penda 11.1m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Flashing unexpected offensive competence, he knocked down timely shots to easily surpass his dismal recent averages. However, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses and an inability to secure stops. The scoring burst was a nice surprise, but it was undone by yielding easy points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Limited minutes prevented him from finding any sort of offensive rhythm, resulting in a negative box impact. He still managed to showcase his trademark defensive instincts in a brief window, altering shots around the basket. Ultimately, the lack of offensive involvement kept him stuck in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

A fleeting appearance yielded nothing but empty possessions and missed looks. He failed to register any hustle stats or defensive disruption to justify his time on the floor. The sharp drop in efficiency from his recent outings relegated him to a pure negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -45.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Ayo Dosunmu 36.7m
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite a pure perimeter stroke, his overall impact cratered due to costly hidden mistakes and potential live-ball turnovers. The hustle metrics were undeniably strong, but they couldn't mask the structural defensive bleeding during his shifts. He scored effectively, yet the team lost his minutes heavily.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Josh Giddey 35.6m
22
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.6

A massive spike in scoring aggression masked the underlying issues that dragged his net impact into the red. Elite defensive metrics suggest he was highly active on that end, meaning the negative total likely stems from sloppy turnovers or poor transition execution. His shot selection improved drastically from his recent slump, but the hidden mistakes proved costly.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +8.5
Defense +4.5
Turnovers -19.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 8
S Matas Buzelis 35.6m
21
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.2

Elite defensive instincts and high-motor hustle plays drove a massive positive impact score. Despite somewhat streaky perimeter shooting, his ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots anchored the team's defensive rating. He continues to elevate his overall aggression to build on his recent scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
20
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.1

Surgical interior finishing and excellent shot selection fueled a dominant box impact. He consistently punished mismatches in the paint without forcing bad looks from deep. Solid positional defense and rebounding fundamentals kept his overall net rating comfortably in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +10.1
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevin Huerter 5.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

A stark departure from his recent highly efficient stretch, this brief stint was derailed by forced, out-of-rhythm perimeter shots. Missing all his attempts dragged his box impact into the red, and he failed to generate any defensive resistance to offset the offensive goose egg.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring -2.1
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
Tre Jones 29.7m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.0

Continuing a blistering stretch of efficiency, he maximized his touches by refusing to settle for contested jumpers. His stellar offensive orchestration was slightly muted by a lack of defensive disruption. Still, his methodical management of the half-court sets kept the overall needle pointing up.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Bouncing back from a recent scoreless drought, he found success attacking the basket to generate a strong box impact. However, poor defensive positioning and a lack of hustle plays allowed opponents to score easily on the other end. The defensive bleed ultimately washed away his much-improved offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Clunky offensive execution cratered his overall impact despite a mild uptick from his recent abysmal shooting slump. He provided reasonable defensive resistance, but missed interior bunnies and a lack of playmaking flow stalled out the offense. The inability to finish through contact continues to limit his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.5

Completely invisible on the offensive end, his failure to convert looks dragged down his unit's momentum. Defensive breakdowns and blown assignments compounded the issue, resulting in a steep negative total. He failed to replicate the high-percentage finishing that had defined his previous five outings.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -66.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Making the most of a brief cameo, he provided a quick jolt of positive two-way energy. He stayed within himself offensively, taking only open looks, while contributing solid defensive rotations. It was a perfectly executed low-usage shift that kept the team in the plus column.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

A disastrous short stint saw him hemorrhage value through forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers. His inability to initiate the offense led to empty possessions, tanking his box impact in less than five minutes. The signature point-of-attack defense he is known for was entirely absent.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2