Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DEN lead ORL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ORL 2P — 3P —
DEN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 9/21 -4.0
Black 8/18 -2.5
Carter Jr. 11/15 +9.5
Bane 3/11 -6.3
Richardson 4/9 -0.8
Bitadze Open 3/7 -2.7
Howard Hard 3/6 +1.1
Jones Hard 1/2 +0.8
Penda 1/2 +0.8

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Murray Hard 11/22 +8.5
Jokić 10/17 +1.9
Brown 5/11 -1.6
Johnson Hard 6/9 +6.0
Hardaway Jr. Hard 5/8 +4.2
Pickett Hard 3/7 +1.5
Jones Open 4/7 -0.9
Valančiūnas 4/6 +2.0
Strawther Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
DEN
43/91 Field Goals 49/88
47.3% Field Goal % 55.7%
11/33 3-Pointers 16/36
33.3% 3-Point % 44.4%
18/26 Free Throws 12/15
69.2% Free Throw % 80.0%
56.1% True Shooting % 66.6%
50 Total Rebounds 49
12 Offensive 5
32 Defensive 35
30 Assists 31
3.00 Assist/TO Ratio 2.07
9 Turnovers 13
9 Steals 7
6 Blocks 3
17 Fouls 18
62 Points in Paint 54
27 Fast Break Pts 28
23 Points off TOs 13
8 Second Chance Pts 12
30 Bench Points 33
14 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Wendell Carter Jr.
26 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 28.6 MIN
+29.74
2
Jamal Murray
32 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 35.7 MIN
+22.88
3
Paolo Banchero
26 PTS · 16 REB · 10 AST · 39.3 MIN
+21.61
4
Cameron Johnson
19 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 35.7 MIN
+19.92
5
Nikola Jokić
23 PTS · 11 REB · 13 AST · 37.8 MIN
+19.25
6
Goga Bitadze
6 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 19.4 MIN
+13.23
7
Jett Howard
12 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 28.9 MIN
+12.98
8
Anthony Black
22 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 37.4 MIN
+11.58
9
Jalen Pickett
9 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 23.9 MIN
+10.96
10
Jonas Valančiūnas
10 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 13.2 MIN
+8.93
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 DEN shot clock Team TURNOVER 115–126
Q4 0:36 N. Jokić REBOUND (Off:1 Def:10) 115–126
Q4 0:40 MISS W. Carter Jr. 26' 3PT 115–126
Q4 0:56 C. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 115–126
Q4 0:56 C. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 115–125
Q4 0:56 D. Bane personal FOUL (3 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 115–124
Q4 0:57 N. Jokić REBOUND (Off:1 Def:9) 115–124
Q4 0:59 MISS P. Banchero 10' pullup Shot 115–124
Q4 1:15 C. Johnson 3PT (17 PTS) (N. Jokić 13 AST) 115–124
Q4 1:24 A. Black personal FOUL (4 PF) 115–121
Q4 1:32 A. Black running alley-oop DUNK (22 PTS) (J. Howard 2 AST) 115–121
Q4 1:35 J. Howard REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 113–121
Q4 1:37 MISS J. Murray 14' turnaround fadeaway Shot 113–121
Q4 2:06 W. Carter Jr. tip DUNK (26 PTS) 113–121
Q4 2:06 W. Carter Jr. REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 111–121

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 37.8m
23
pts
11
reb
13
ast
Impact
+22.1

An unusually muted overall impact score suggests the opponent's aggressive fronting schemes successfully disrupted his typical hub actions. While he still anchored the defense with brilliant positional awareness, the offense frequently stalled out when he was forced to operate from the perimeter. He settled for too many contested push shots instead of bullying his way to the restricted area.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +14.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Cameron Johnson 35.7m
19
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.6

Lethal weak-side spacing and disciplined closeout defense fueled a highly efficient two-way performance. He punished over-helps by constantly relocating to the corners, ensuring the offense never bogged down. That pristine shot selection maximized his value without requiring heavy on-ball reps.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 35.7m
32
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+23.0

A blistering barrage of pull-up triples out of high pick-and-roll action broke the back of the opposing defense. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly in the third quarter, capitalizing on drop coverages with elite shot-making. Only some minor defensive lapses fighting through screens kept this from being a truly astronomical rating.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +23.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +8.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bruce Brown 34.4m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Getting repeatedly torched on straight-line drives absolutely decimated his defensive value. Even though he found some success scoring out of the dunker spot, his inability to stay in front of quick guards compromised the entire defensive shell. Those constant breakdowns at the point of attack forced rotations that bled open corner threes.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Spencer Jones 18.9m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Scrappy perimeter defense and timely backcuts kept the momentum rolling during the non-Jokic minutes. He completely abandoned his struggling three-point shot in favor of aggressive slashes to the rim, which stabilized his efficiency. Generating multiple extra possessions via loose ball recoveries cemented his positive grade.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Defensive miscommunications and late closeouts completely erased the value of his hot shooting hand. He frequently lost track of his man in transition, surrendering easy layups that swung momentum the wrong way. His offensive spark simply couldn't outpace the defensive bleeding he caused on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.2

Pounding the air out of the ball at the top of the key led to stagnant, late-clock possessions. Even though he eventually knocked down a few bailout threes, the sluggish pacing disrupted the team's transition attack. A severe lack of off-ball hustle further limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Sheer physicality in the painted area allowed him to dominate his backup minutes with brutal efficiency. He punished smaller defenders on the block and established an impenetrable wall defensively. Controlling the glass on both ends prevented any second-chance opportunities for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Zeke Nnaji 7.6m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.7

Operating as an offensive zero allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint and disrupt spacing. While he managed to hold his ground on a few post-up defensive sequences, his complete lack of scoring gravity stalled out the second unit. The offense essentially played four-on-five during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Provided a brief but stable presence during a quick first-half rotation shift. He executed the offensive sets cleanly without forcing any unnecessary actions. Staying disciplined within the defensive scheme ensured he didn't hurt the team during his limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 39.3m
26
pts
16
reb
10
ast
Impact
+26.1

Elite defensive rebounding and physical interior defense drove a massive positive box score, but heavy offensive usage yielded diminishing returns. Forcing up contested midrange looks and bricking every perimeter attempt capped his overall ceiling. He essentially bullied his way to production through sheer volume rather than efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +18.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Black 37.4m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Wasted possessions on forced drives into traffic severely undercut an otherwise active floor game. While he generated solid hustle metrics through deflections and loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of missed rim attempts dragged down offensive efficiency. His shot selection needs tightening to translate raw activity into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Desmond Bane 36.4m
6
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.0

An uncharacteristic offensive disappearing act completely tanked his overall impact. Missing all of his perimeter attempts stalled out the offense, forcing others into late-clock situations. Despite respectable perimeter defense, the massive drop-off from his usual scoring production created a glaring negative differential.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
26
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+27.3

Dominant two-way efficiency fueled a team-high impact rating, highlighted by deadly pick-and-pop execution. Punishing drop coverages with a barrage of spot-up triples stretched the floor beautifully for the primary creators. He anchored the paint defensively while maintaining a scorching shooting rhythm for the third consecutive game.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 86.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +22.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +9.2
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tyus Jones 19.1m
5
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.5

Floating through his minutes as a pure passenger resulted in a net-negative showing. A complete lack of defensive resistance and zero hustle plays meant he was essentially invisible on one end of the floor. Passing up open looks to reset the offense only further stagnated the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -51.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 28.9m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Capitalizing on defensive rotations allowed him to find a great rhythm as a spot-up threat, far exceeding his usual scoring output. However, his overall impact hovered near neutral due to defensive lapses in transition. He gave back nearly everything he gained on offense by frequently losing his man on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 19.4m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Elite rim protection and relentless screen-setting defined this highly impactful reserve shift. He completely walled off the paint during the second quarter, altering multiple floaters and securing contested defensive boards. Those high-leverage hustle plays masked a somewhat clunky offensive showing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Forcing difficult floaters early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow and led to empty trips. Despite showing flashes of aggressive point-of-attack defense, those poor offensive decisions allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. His tendency to play hero ball ultimately sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Penda 11.6m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Active hands in the passing lanes generated a solid defensive grade during his brief stint. Unfortunately, a lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely double team the primary ball handlers. He simply didn't command enough attention on the perimeter to swing the math in a positive direction.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -59.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1