Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 14/22 +10.1
Edgecombe 10/16 +5.2
Embiid 9/15 +1.5
George Hard 5/11 +2.1
Grimes 4/10 -2.0
McCain Hard 2/7 -1.7
Walker Open 2/4 -1.4
Bona Open 1/3 -2.2
Barlow Open 2/2 +1.2

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson 10/21 +2.1
Towns 6/16 -7.1
Bridges Hard 5/14 -3.1
Anunoby 6/11 +1.4
McBride Hard 6/9 +6.8
Kolek Hard 2/7 -1.7
Clarkson Hard 1/4 -1.5
McCullar Jr. 1/3 -0.6
Robinson Open 1/2 -0.8
Yabusele 0/2 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHI
NYK
49/90 Field Goals 38/89
54.4% Field Goal % 42.7%
17/36 3-Pointers 16/40
47.2% 3-Point % 40.0%
15/23 Free Throws 27/32
65.2% Free Throw % 84.4%
64.9% True Shooting % 57.7%
58 Total Rebounds 47
9 Offensive 14
38 Defensive 30
25 Assists 23
1.79 Assist/TO Ratio 1.44
13 Turnovers 16
7 Steals 9
10 Blocks 2
23 Fouls 18
54 Points in Paint 32
20 Fast Break Pts 16
25 Points off TOs 20
11 Second Chance Pts 22
22 Bench Points 32
19 Largest Lead 5
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyrese Maxey
36 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 37.4 MIN
+27.41
2
VJ Edgecombe
26 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 41.1 MIN
+25.41
3
Karl-Anthony Towns
23 PTS · 14 REB · 2 AST · 33.6 MIN
+21.97
4
Miles McBride
20 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 31.0 MIN
+17.67
5
OG Anunoby
19 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 37.2 MIN
+16.71
6
Joel Embiid
26 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 33.1 MIN
+15.78
7
Quentin Grimes
10 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 33.8 MIN
+15.36
8
Jalen Brunson
31 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 34.6 MIN
+13.85
9
Mikal Bridges
12 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 36.8 MIN
+13.63
10
Paul George
15 PTS · 8 REB · 6 AST · 35.2 MIN
+12.54
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:16 Q. Grimes STEAL (3 STL) 130–119
Q4 0:16 J. Brunson bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 130–119
Q4 0:24 J. Embiid cutting DUNK (26 PTS) (V. Edgecombe 4 AST) 130–119
Q4 0:33 K. Towns Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 128–119
Q4 0:33 K. Towns Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 128–118
Q4 0:33 P. George shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Towns 2 FT) 128–117
Q4 0:35 K. Towns STEAL (2 STL) 128–117
Q4 0:35 P. George lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 128–117
Q4 0:42 J. Brunson 8' driving floating Jump Shot (31 PTS) 128–117
Q4 0:50 V. Edgecombe Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 128–115
Q4 0:50 V. Edgecombe Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 127–115
Q4 0:50 M. McBride personal FOUL (4 PF) (Edgecombe 2 FT) 126–115
Q4 1:00 J. Brunson Free Throw 2 of 2 (29 PTS) 126–115
Q4 1:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 126–114
Q4 1:00 MISS J. Brunson Free Throw 1 of 2 126–114

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

NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 37.2m
19
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.7

A solid box score contribution was undermined by late-clock turnovers and missed defensive assignments in transition. His tendency to force isolation drives into traffic resulted in empty possessions that wiped out his value as a spot-up threat.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Mikal Bridges 36.8m
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.9

High-level point-of-attack defense and constant off-ball movement kept his impact afloat despite poor shooting efficiency. He struggled to find his rhythm on contested mid-range pull-ups, but his closeouts prevented several open looks from deep.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 34.6m
31
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.6

High-volume scoring masked the damage caused by defensive breakdowns and struggles navigating screens. Opposing guards consistently blew past him at the point of attack, forcing rotations that gave away the points he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +22.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
23
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.3

By punishing mismatches in the post and controlling the defensive glass, he anchored a highly productive shift. His willingness to battle through double-teams created high-quality kickout opportunities that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +12.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Offensive invisibility and an inability to secure contested rebounds allowed opponents to dictate the pace. He was frequently pulled away from the basket by stretch bigs, neutralizing his elite shot-blocking instincts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

A massive leap in offensive confidence saw him punishing defensive closeouts and hitting timely momentum threes. His relentless ball pressure disrupted the opposing team's offensive initiation, sparking a game-changing run for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.9%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.6

A disastrous stint was defined by forced isolation plays and live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. His tunnel vision completely stalled the team's ball movement, bleeding value on nearly every offensive trip.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 13.6m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Over-dribbling and an inability to break down his primary defender led to multiple late-clock violations. While he hit a couple of timely perimeter shots, his defensive struggles against bigger guards kept his overall impact deeply negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Rushed decision-making and poor spacing dragged down his limited minutes. He was repeatedly caught ball-watching on defense, allowing backdoor cuts that directly led to easy opponent layups.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Looking lost in defensive rotations, he failed to make an imprint during his brief stint on the floor. His inability to establish deep post position or set solid screens resulted in stagnant offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -1.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.6

Completely out of sync offensively, he forced ill-advised shots early in the shot clock. His heavy-footed closeouts on the perimeter made him a liability that the opposing offense actively hunted.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -63.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Garbage time action accounted for his brief appearance without recording a meaningful statistic. His primary contribution was simply eating the final seconds of the clock to preserve the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 41.1m
26
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.9

An explosive scoring surge was driven by relentless downhill attacks and excellent shot selection on the perimeter. His point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm, cementing a breakout two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Scoring +21.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Tyrese Maxey 37.4m
36
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+25.5

Elite burst in transition and precise navigation of high ball screens resulted in a massive offensive rating spike. He consistently punished drop coverage with deep pull-ups, while his relentless off-ball chasing generated key stops on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +29.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +9.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Paul George 35.2m
15
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.8

A significant drop in scoring volume was offset by high-level defensive engagement and active hands in the passing lanes. He sacrificed his own offense to operate as a secondary playmaker, generating crucial deflections that fueled Philadelphia's transition attack.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense -4.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Joel Embiid 33.1m
26
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.7

Dominant interior positioning forced opponents into constant foul trouble, anchoring a massive positive impact. His defensive gravity deterred drives to the paint, allowing perimeter defenders to press up aggressively.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.1%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +19.8
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +10.8
Defense -6.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dominick Barlow 14.2m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.8

Despite maintaining his perfect shooting streak around the rim, defensive lapses in the pick-and-roll dragged his overall impact into the red. His inability to contain ball-handlers in space allowed easy penetration during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.1

Exceptional defensive metrics were completely neutralized by empty offensive possessions and missed open looks from the corners. He locked down his primary matchup on the perimeter but failed to capitalize on the spacing created by his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
Adem Bona 18.4m
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Early foul trouble and poor screen-setting negated his usually reliable interior presence. Although he provided decent weak-side rim protection, his inability to finish through contact on rolls to the basket stalled the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jared McCain 17.6m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Poor shot selection and struggles to create separation off the dribble severely damaged his offensive efficiency. Opponents actively targeted his lack of size in the post, leading to costly defensive rotations that tanked his overall score.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Minimal involvement in the half-court offense limited his ability to generate positive momentum. While he held his own on defensive switches, a lack of rebounding aggression kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0