Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 190 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

McCollum Hard 5/14 -4.0
Carrington Hard 3/12 -3.6
George Hard 3/11 -2.4
Whitmore 2/11 -7.7
Vukcevic Open 6/9 +1.6
Champagnie 3/9 -2.5
Riley 5/6 +4.9
Bagley III 3/6 0.0
Coulibaly 1/5 -3.5
Branham 3/4 +1.5

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 13/26 +0.6
McCain 6/11 +1.3
George Hard 4/10 +1.4
Edgecombe 4/10 -1.3
Edwards Hard 3/9 0.0
Walker 4/9 -0.8
Drummond Open 5/8 +0.9
Barlow Open 4/6 +1.2
Broome Open 0/6 -7.0
Gordon 1/4 -1.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
PHI
35/88 Field Goals 46/102
39.8% Field Goal % 45.1%
9/36 3-Pointers 17/40
25.0% 3-Point % 42.5%
23/32 Free Throws 12/17
71.9% Free Throw % 70.6%
50.0% True Shooting % 55.3%
62 Total Rebounds 61
16 Offensive 13
37 Defensive 38
23 Assists 26
1.53 Assist/TO Ratio 2.36
15 Turnovers 10
5 Steals 12
11 Blocks 6
15 Fouls 21
44 Points in Paint 54
14 Fast Break Pts 24
9 Points off TOs 28
11 Second Chance Pts 24
53 Bench Points 42
6 Largest Lead 36
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyrese Maxey
35 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 28.8 MIN
+37.16
2
Marvin Bagley III
13 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 26.3 MIN
+17.61
3
VJ Edgecombe
9 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 23.7 MIN
+15.74
4
Will Riley
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+13.69
5
Andre Drummond
12 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 17.2 MIN
+13.46
6
Dominick Barlow
12 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 20.0 MIN
+13.05
7
Malaki Branham
8 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 11.0 MIN
+10.89
8
Justin Champagnie
13 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 23.9 MIN
+10.87
9
Tristan Vukcevic
16 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 21.7 MIN
+9.76
10
Jared McCain
14 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 25.2 MIN
+9.57
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 PHI shot clock Team TURNOVER 102–121
Q4 0:34 W. Riley running Layup (13 PTS) (M. Branham 2 AST) 102–121
Q4 0:37 M. Branham REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 100–121
Q4 0:40 MISS J. Walker driving DUNK 100–121
Q4 0:51 J. Walker REBOUND (Off:3 Def:9) 100–121
Q4 0:51 MISS B. Carrington 27' running pullup 3PT 100–121
Q4 0:53 B. Carrington REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 100–121
Q4 0:55 MISS J. Broome driving floating Shot 100–121
Q4 1:09 B. Carrington 27' 3PT pullup (10 PTS) (T. Vukcevic 4 AST) 100–121
Q4 1:19 T. Vukcevic REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 97–121
Q4 1:22 MISS E. Gordon driving finger roll Layup 97–121
Q4 1:44 B. Carrington 26' 3PT (7 PTS) (M. Branham 1 AST) 97–121
Q4 1:48 T. Vukcevic REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 94–121
Q4 1:52 A. Gill BLOCK (1 BLK) 94–121
Q4 1:52 MISS J. Broome DUNK - blocked 94–121

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Tyrese Maxey actually won the night
35 points, 4 boards, 6 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+24.4), defense (+8.1), and shot-making (+7.2), pushing Net Impact to +37.7.
Scoring +24.4
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +8.1
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +7.2
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Kyshawn George too hard
11 points, 8 boards, 5 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was defense (-3.2) and turnovers (-2.4), pulling Net Impact down to -3.4.
Defense -3.2
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Turnovers -2.4
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Creation +0.7
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Malaki Branham's value was hiding in plain sight
8 points, 5 boards, 2 assists undersells it. scoring (+6.3), hustle (+5.4), and defense (+2.4) pushed his Net Impact to +6.8.
Scoring +6.3
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +5.4
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Defense +2.4
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
hidden value
Dominick Barlow's value was hiding in plain sight
12 points, 1 board, 0 assists undersells it. scoring (+9.7), shot-making (+1.6), and creation (+1.6) pushed his Net Impact to +5.7.
Scoring +9.7
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +1.6
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Creation +1.6
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 28.8m
35
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+37.7

An absolute masterclass in exploiting drop coverage allowed him to dictate the pace of the entire game. His relentless downhill attacks warped the opposing defensive shell, generating an astronomical net rating that single-handedly carried the offense.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +24.4
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +7.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +8.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 23.7m
9
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

Even with his jumper failing to fall at its usual rate, relentless energy on the defensive end kept his impact highly positive. Chasing down loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs proved that his value extends far beyond pure scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 20.0m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Excellent rim-running and decisive cuts to the basket fueled a massive surge in his offensive production. He paired this interior efficiency with disciplined verticality at the rim, anchoring the second unit's defense during a crucial stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Paul George 17.7m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

A noticeable lack of aggression limited his usual offensive dominance, settling into a secondary role rather than hunting his own shot. He salvaged a slightly positive impact by utilizing his length to jump passing lanes and generate deflections.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 17.2m
12
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Dominating the glass and converting second-chance opportunities completely shifted the momentum of the interior battle. His sheer physical presence overwhelmed smaller defenders in the paint, driving a massive spike in his usual offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +9.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Getting caught out of position in transition defense consistently bled points during his heavy workload. Even though he showed flashes of active hands in the half-court, bricking open corner looks prevented him from offsetting the damage on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 25.2m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

A sudden burst of offensive confidence saw him dissecting closeouts with sharp drives to the rim. Unfortunately, his positive scoring contributions were neutralized by getting repeatedly targeted and bullied on switches by larger wings.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +71.8
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Crashing the offensive glass with reckless abandon generated extra possessions, significantly boosting his usual scoring output. However, slow lateral footwork on the perimeter allowed opposing guards to blow by him, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +15.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Adem Bona 21.7m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Setting bone-crushing screens and rolling with purpose opened up critical driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. His high-motor activity in the dunker spot ensured the offense kept humming without him needing to demand touches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +54.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense -4.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Eric Gordon 12.8m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

A complete lack of burst off the dribble relegated him to a static floor-spacing role that the defense easily ignored. Forcing a couple of contested, late-clock heaves only exacerbated a highly ineffective stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Struggling to navigate through screens left him trailing plays and compromising the defensive shell. He was entirely marginalized on offense during his brief appearance, failing to register any meaningful pressure on the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
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
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

Forcing contested shots in the paint completely derailed the offense during his short time on the floor. His inability to finish through contact resulted in a string of empty possessions that immediately handed momentum back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring -6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 33.4m
11
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite generating significant value through active defensive rotations and loose ball recoveries, his overall impact sank into the negative. A high volume of empty possessions stemming from poor perimeter shot selection ultimately negated his gritty defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Interior dominance defined his stint on the floor, as he consistently sealed off defenders to create high-percentage looks. His massive defensive rating boost came from deterring drives at the rim, proving his recent surge in efficiency is translating to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.8m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Passive offensive involvement and an inability to convert in traffic resulted in a massive drop-off from his usual production. While his on-ball defensive pressure remained solid, the lack of scoring gravity severely cramped the floor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

His recent streak of hyper-efficient finishing came to a halt, limiting his offensive ceiling in this matchup. However, he managed to keep his head above water by relying on strong weak-side defensive positioning to stabilize his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +8.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S CJ McCollum 23.9m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

A disastrous night from beyond the arc completely torpedoed his offensive value. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint led to a string of empty trips that allowed the opposition to build momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Riley 26.2m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite shot selection and perfect execution from deep generated a stellar box score impact. Despite the hyper-efficient scoring, his overall net rating was diluted by a few missed defensive assignments during a late-game run by the opposing bench.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.2

Forcing the issue against set defenses resulted in a barrage of clanked jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. This erratic shot selection cratered his overall impact rating, completely overshadowing a few decent hustle plays in the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Capitalizing on pick-and-pop mismatches allowed him to score efficiently and exceed his usual baseline. Yet, his overall net rating remained surprisingly muted due to sluggish transition defense that gave away easy points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -63.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Whitmore 16.2m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Tunnel vision on drives and a refusal to move the ball out of double-teams led to a highly inefficient offensive showing. Wasting possessions on contested mid-range looks actively harmed the team's offensive flow during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring -4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Making the most of a short stint, he provided an immediate spark by attacking closeouts with precision. His disciplined point-of-attack defense also disrupted the opposing guards' rhythm, driving a highly efficient plus-minus in under a quarter of action.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Operating strictly within his role, he maintained his recent streak of flawless finishing by only taking what the defense conceded. His brief appearance was defined by sturdy post defense rather than offensive volume, resulting in a neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +88.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0