Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead ORL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ORL 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 201 attempts

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Bane Hard 13/21 +8.5
Banchero 6/18 -4.8
Black Hard 6/12 +1.2
Penda 6/11 0.0
Richardson Hard 4/10 +0.6
Carter Jr. 6/9 +2.3
Jones Hard 2/7 -2.3
Howard Hard 2/4 +0.9
Bitadze Open 2/2 +1.4
Isaac Hard 0/2 -1.9

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

George Hard 8/22 -3.7
Mykhailiuk 9/16 +4.8
Bailey Hard 6/14 +0.1
Love 6/12 +1.3
Collier Open 6/12 -0.9
Sensabaugh 3/9 -3.9
Filipowski Hard 2/7 -3.0
Nurkić Open 2/5 -1.6
Williams Hard 0/4 -4.2
Hendricks 2/2 +2.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
UTA
47/96 Field Goals 44/105
49.0% Field Goal % 41.9%
11/37 3-Pointers 15/43
29.7% 3-Point % 34.9%
23/33 Free Throws 24/30
69.7% Free Throw % 80.0%
57.9% True Shooting % 53.7%
61 Total Rebounds 66
14 Offensive 18
38 Defensive 34
32 Assists 34
2.46 Assist/TO Ratio 2.83
13 Turnovers 12
6 Steals 7
9 Blocks 2
29 Fouls 29
64 Points in Paint 50
18 Fast Break Pts 18
17 Points off TOs 13
21 Second Chance Pts 27
34 Bench Points 53
19 Largest Lead 5
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Noah Penda
13 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 23.6 MIN
+23.36
2
Svi Mykhailiuk
23 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 30.9 MIN
+21.66
3
Kevin Love
16 PTS · 16 REB · 1 AST · 31.9 MIN
+21.52
4
Desmond Bane
32 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 39.3 MIN
+21.13
5
Anthony Black
20 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 39.6 MIN
+13.38
6
Keyonte George
27 PTS · 4 REB · 9 AST · 41.5 MIN
+13.15
7
Paolo Banchero
23 PTS · 9 REB · 9 AST · 42.3 MIN
+11.39
8
Wendell Carter Jr.
14 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 37.5 MIN
+11.31
9
Isaiah Collier
18 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 28.1 MIN
+11.21
10
Ace Bailey
14 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 34.4 MIN
+11.16
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q5 0:00 D. Bane 6' driving finger roll Layup (32 PTS) (W. Carter Jr. 4 AST) 128–127
Q5 0:04 K. George Free Throw 1 of 1 (27 PTS) 126–127
Q5 0:04 A. Black shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (George 1 FT) 126–126
Q5 0:04 K. George 25' 3PT step back (26 PTS) 126–126
Q5 0:14 A. Black Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 126–123
Q5 0:14 TEAM offensive REBOUND 125–123
Q5 0:14 MISS A. Black Free Throw 1 of 2 125–123
Q5 0:14 I. Collier take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Black 2 FT) 125–123
Q5 0:16 N. Penda REBOUND (Off:7 Def:5) 125–123
Q5 0:20 MISS S. Mykhailiuk 25' 3PT 125–123
Q5 0:27 A. Black running DUNK (19 PTS) (P. Banchero 9 AST) 125–123
Q5 0:30 D. Bane STEAL (2 STL) 123–123
Q5 0:30 I. Collier lost ball TURNOVER (3 TO) 123–123
Q5 0:39 P. Banchero offensive foul TURNOVER (2 TO) 123–123
Q5 0:39 P. Banchero charge offensive FOUL (4 PF) 123–123

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

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 41.5m
27
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+7.1

A massive volume of bricked jumpers severely undercut the value of his high-end playmaking and defensive engagement. He tried to shoot his way out of a slump, which led to long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite commendable point-of-attack pressure (+4.3 defense), the offensive inefficiency ultimately tipped his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.5m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Ace Bailey 34.4m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Questionable shot selection from beyond the arc acted as a ceiling on an otherwise active two-way performance. While he generated extra possessions via a strong +3.7 hustle impact, clanking contested jumpers early in the shot clock handed the momentum right back. He needs to leverage his athleticism toward the rim rather than settling for long contested looks.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Svi Mykhailiuk 30.9m
23
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.3

Lethal perimeter marksmanship and constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive shell, opening up driving lanes for everyone else. Beyond the jumper, an incredible +7.3 hustle rating highlighted his willingness to crash the long rebounds and dive for loose balls. He capitalized on every defensive miscommunication during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 21.1m
4
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.3

Operating primarily as a high-post hub, his screening and passing angles kept the half-court offense humming despite his own lack of scoring volume. He mitigated his offensive passivity with sturdy positional rebounding and timely box-outs. It was a utilitarian performance that barely moved the needle but maintained the structural integrity of the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 21.1m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

A drastic regression to the mean saw him struggle heavily against physical interior defense, snapping his streak of high-efficiency outings. Forced shots in the paint and a lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the lane. The resulting empty possessions completely cratered his net impact (-9.9) during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 31.9m
16
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.8

A vintage performance defined by elite defensive rebounding and lethal trail-three marksmanship that completely stretched the opposing frontcourt. He controlled the defensive glass with flawless positioning, instantly igniting the break with his outlet passing. This massive bounce-back game (+9.6 total impact) showcased his enduring value as a floor-spacing hub.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +18.4
Defense -2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.0

Defensive matador tendencies (-1.0 impact) completely erased the value of his dynamic downhill playmaking. While he orchestrated the offense beautifully in the half-court, he was repeatedly blown by on the perimeter, forcing the defense into scramble mode. The lack of resistance at the point of attack is why his overall net rating remains stubbornly in the red.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Complete apathy in the hustle department (+0.0) compounded a frigid shooting night, resulting in a highly detrimental floor presence. Without his jumper falling, his lack of secondary effort or defensive playmaking became glaringly obvious. He failed to adapt to the physical perimeter coverage, settling for tough, contested looks instead of moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.7

An absolute offensive zero who completely lost his confidence after a couple of early misses at the rim. While his length provided some defensive utility (+2.1 impact), his hesitancy to attack closeouts allowed the defense to play five-on-four. This was a stark and damaging regression from his recent aggressive scoring stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Taking only high-value, wide-open looks allowed him to maximize his brief stint and generate a positive +2.8 impact score. He finally broke out of his recent shooting slump by letting the offense come to him rather than forcing the issue. Tightening up his weak-side rotations (-0.5 defense) will make these short bursts even more valuable.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.9

Rushed perimeter attempts and a total inability to create separation ruined his short stint on the floor. Although he competed hard on the defensive end (+2.6 impact), his offensive possessions were effectively turnovers that killed the team's momentum. He looked entirely out of rhythm against the length of the opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 42.3m
23
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.0

Heavy isolation usage resulted in a brutal string of clanked jumpers that torpedoed his overall net rating (-6.5). While he managed to generate decent defensive metrics, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions allowed the opponent to dictate the transition pace. He settled far too often against set half-court defenses.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.3m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Anthony Black 39.6m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.2

Relentless energy plays and loose-ball recoveries drove a stellar hustle score (+5.2) that kept his overall impact in the green. He capitalized on broken plays and secondary actions rather than dominating the ball. That off-ball activity perfectly complemented the primary creators, even when his perimeter shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 39.4m
32
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.2

High-volume shot creation fueled a massive offensive surge that eclipsed his recent scoring averages. His defensive engagement (+5.5 impact) matched his perimeter touch, allowing him to anchor the perimeter rotation effectively. The sheer efficiency of his pull-up game kept the opposing defense in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +26.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +7.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
14
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Consistent interior finishing extended his streak of highly efficient shooting nights, providing a reliable safety valve in the paint. His sturdy pick-and-roll coverage (+4.8 defensive impact) neutralized downhill threats, though a lack of sheer volume kept his total net impact modestly positive. He played exactly within his role without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +10.5
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tyus Jones 18.2m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.9

Perimeter shot selection continues to be a glaring issue, with deep misses fueling long rebounds and opponent run-outs. Despite commendable point-of-attack defense (+3.0 impact) and active hands in passing lanes, the offensive dead ends dragged his overall rating into the red. He is currently struggling to punish drop coverages.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 23.6m
13
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.5

An absolute revelation on the glass and in help-side coverage, generating a staggering +10.3 defensive impact score. He completely shattered his recent slump by outworking bigger matchups for second-chance opportunities. This two-way dominance dictated the tempo of the entire second half.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +14.3
Defense +3.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

Defensive lapses at the point of attack completely erased the value of his unexpected scoring bump. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, leading to a disastrous -7.3 total impact. The increased offensive aggression came at the direct expense of his rotational discipline.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 15.6m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Elite rim protection and flawless shot selection created a massive +7.5 net swing in just a quarter and a half of action. He completely sealed off the paint during the second-quarter rotation, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Maximizing every touch without demanding the ball is exactly what drove this highly efficient cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jett Howard 14.8m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

A severe lack of off-ball movement and secondary effort plays (+0.2 hustle) rendered him nearly invisible during his stint. He failed to bend the defense on his limited touches, allowing defenders to easily recover. The resulting stagnant stretches tanked his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.9

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped the second unit's spacing during his brief rotation. While he provided his standard weak-side rim deterrence (+1.1 defensive impact), the inability to punish closeouts made it too easy for the opponent to trap the ball-handler. He simply couldn't stay on the floor without crippling the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0