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 171 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Coulibaly 7/14 -0.4
Johnson Hard 8/13 +5.2
Carrington Hard 5/11 +4.2
Bagley III 4/10 -2.6
Branham Open 3/10 -6.2
Johnson Open 3/9 -5.0
Sarr 6/8 +4.0
Champagnie Open 3/7 -2.8
Gill 3/4 +3.2
Vukcevic Hard 1/1 +1.2

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 9/15 +5.6
Embiid 10/14 +6.8
Edgecombe 4/13 -4.8
George Hard 7/11 +7.7
Grimes 5/9 +0.5
Barlow Open 5/6 +3.2
Drummond 3/6 +1.0
Oubre Jr. Hard 1/4 -1.6
McCain Hard 0/3 -2.7
Bona Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
PHI
43/87 Field Goals 45/84
49.4% Field Goal % 53.6%
13/33 3-Pointers 14/37
39.4% 3-Point % 37.8%
11/11 Free Throws 27/32
100.0% Free Throw % 84.4%
59.9% True Shooting % 66.8%
47 Total Rebounds 42
11 Offensive 7
31 Defensive 27
29 Assists 30
1.32 Assist/TO Ratio 3.00
22 Turnovers 10
7 Steals 15
6 Blocks 5
20 Fouls 11
52 Points in Paint 48
15 Fast Break Pts 21
7 Points off TOs 25
11 Second Chance Pts 13
33 Bench Points 34
5 Largest Lead 24
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Paul George
23 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 32.9 MIN
+25.75
2
Joel Embiid
28 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 25.4 MIN
+22.52
3
Tyrese Maxey
22 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 28.4 MIN
+21.51
4
VJ Edgecombe
13 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 35.4 MIN
+16.14
5
Andre Drummond
11 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 12.4 MIN
+15.94
6
Alex Sarr
15 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 26.8 MIN
+15.16
7
Dominick Barlow
11 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 23.2 MIN
+14.92
8
Tre Johnson
20 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 28.1 MIN
+14.63
9
Quentin Grimes
16 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 26.3 MIN
+14.4
10
Marvin Bagley III
9 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 16.4 MIN
+11.18
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:18 A. Johnson running DUNK (6 PTS) (B. Carrington 7 AST) 110–131
Q4 0:20 A. Gill REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 108–131
Q4 0:24 M. Branham BLOCK (1 BLK) 108–131
Q4 0:24 MISS J. Edwards 26' 3PT - blocked 108–131
Q4 0:41 Q. Grimes STEAL (2 STL) 108–131
Q4 0:41 T. Vukcevic lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 108–131
Q4 0:48 A. Bona cutting DUNK (2 PTS) (T. Watford 3 AST) 108–131
Q4 0:58 B. Carrington 26' 3PT step back (18 PTS) 108–129
Q4 1:08 J. McCain Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 105–129
Q4 1:08 J. McCain Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 105–128
Q4 1:08 M. Branham personal FOUL (2 PF) (McCain 2 FT) 105–127
Q4 1:16 A. Gill cutting DUNK (8 PTS) (T. Vukcevic 1 AST) 105–127
Q4 1:32 Q. Grimes 26' 3PT (16 PTS) (T. Watford 2 AST) 103–127
Q4 1:46 B. Carrington 25' 3PT (15 PTS) (M. Branham 8 AST) 103–124
Q4 2:00 Q. Grimes Free Throw 2 of 2 (13 PTS) 100–124

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

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 35.4m
13
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.0

A spectacular defensive impact and relentless hustle barely offset the damage done by his erratic shot selection. He bricked a high volume of perimeter looks, short-circuiting several offensive sets. If he had deferred to teammates instead of forcing contested jumpers, his elite defensive effort would have yielded a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +10.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 32.9m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.2

Two-way dominance defined this performance, highlighted by a suffocating defensive rating that completely disrupted the opponent's wing actions. He paired elite shot selection with active hands in the passing lanes to generate massive positive value. This was a masterclass in scalable, high-efficiency basketball that dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 84.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 28.4m
22
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+18.1

Blistering pace in transition and decisive rim attacks fueled a highly productive net impact. He also contributed significantly on the other end by navigating screens cleanly and applying constant ball pressure. His ability to collapse the defense without turning the ball over was the engine of the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Joel Embiid 25.4m
28
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.1

An absolute foul-drawing machine who leveraged his massive physical advantage to collapse the defense on every possession. His sheer gravity created wide-open looks for teammates, while his defensive impact came from simply walling off the paint. He dictated the terms of engagement from the opening tip, punishing single coverage relentlessly.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +24.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 23.2m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Capitalized on his minutes with ruthless efficiency around the basket, continuing a streak of highly effective offensive outings. His positive hustle rating reflects a willingness to do the dirty work, setting bruising screens and diving for loose balls. He played perfectly within his role, taking only high-percentage looks to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +46.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Thrived as a high-end connective piece, combining timely cuts with stout perimeter defense. His positive hustle score indicates a willingness to contest out on the break and battle for long rebounds. He capitalized on the gravity of the stars, maintaining his recent streak of hyper-efficient complementary play.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

A severe offensive disappearing act tanked his overall value, as he failed to exploit defensive rotations or attack closeouts. While he remained engaged defensively and chased down loose balls, the lack of scoring punch created dead spots in the offense. He was essentially a non-factor on a night where his usual aggression was completely absent.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

Completely flipped the momentum of the game in limited minutes by dominating the interior and surprisingly stretching the floor. His massive defensive rating stemmed from elite rebounding positioning that ended opponent possessions immediately. This was a highly concentrated burst of two-way efficiency that crushed the opposing bench.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +57.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Jared McCain 10.7m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief, disjointed stint that resulted in a negative impact score. Forced a couple of bad looks early in the clock and failed to generate any meaningful separation. The lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption made his minutes a clear negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 10.2m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

A complete lack of hustle stats and low overall engagement led to a negative net rating despite perfect shooting. He failed to alter shots at the rim or secure contested rebounds, allowing the opponent to dictate the physicality of the second unit. He was simply too passive to leave a positive imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -81.1
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Failed to make any tangible positive contributions during his garbage-time minutes, resulting in a negative impact. He looked hesitant to attack closeouts and generated zero hustle events to justify his floor time. The game simply moved too fast for him during this brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
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
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Acted as a quick-hitting offensive hub during his limited run, moving the ball unselfishly to generate open looks. He didn't force a single shot, instead relying on his processing speed to keep the offense flowing. A perfectly neutral, mistake-free shift that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

Burned through a very short stint with negative defensive value and zero offensive production. He did show a brief flash of energy, but a blown rotation and a missed assignment quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 39.6m
18
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.2

A disastrous -18.6 net impact reveals the hidden costs of his heavy minutes, likely driven by live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense. Even though his perimeter stroke was falling, he routinely stalled the offense with over-dribbling and got targeted on switches defensively. The raw production was completely hollowed out by negative-value plays that fueled opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Tre Johnson 28.1m
20
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.5

An aggressive scoring mentality yielded double his usual production, but the underlying metrics show a surprisingly neutral overall footprint. The high-usage role resulted in defensive compromises and likely a few costly turnovers that flattened his net impact. He operated primarily as an isolation scorer, which generated points but failed to elevate the surrounding lineup.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bilal Coulibaly 28.0m
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Despite a strong scoring surge above his recent average, his overall impact was dragged into the negative by defensive lapses. Poor rotational awareness led to a -3.1 defensive rating, completely negating his offensive efficiency. The volume of his scoring masked how much he gave up on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 26.8m
15
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.1

Elite rim protection and switchability drove a massive +6.8 defensive impact score. He dominated his individual matchups by deterring drives and forcing contested jumpers, anchoring the unit whenever he was on the floor. His highly selective shot profile also ensured he didn't waste possessions on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +8.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

A sharp drop in offensive involvement cratered his overall value, breaking a streak of highly efficient shooting nights. While he provided adequate defensive resistance, his inability to generate quality looks or space the floor stalled the offense during his minutes. He simply floated on the perimeter without forcing the defense to react.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.0

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays almost entirely salvaged a brutal shooting night. He consistently blew up pick-and-rolls and generated extra possessions through deflections, keeping his overall impact near neutral. If his shot selection hadn't been so forced, this would have been a profoundly positive outing.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
Anthony Gill 20.0m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A lack of overall involvement and low hustle metrics pushed his net score into the red despite highly efficient shooting. He failed to make an imprint on the game's tempo, often getting bypassed in the offensive flow. While his positional defense was solid, the passive approach limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
AJ Johnson 19.7m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Inefficient shot hunting and a complete lack of hustle plays severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, leading directly to empty possessions. The slight uptick in his scoring volume was vastly outweighed by the negative value of his overall decision-making.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

High-energy rebounding and interior physicality drove a stellar +8.0 impact despite a dip in his usual scoring efficiency. He dominated the glass during his short stint, creating crucial second-chance opportunities that kept the offense humming. His defensive positioning was noticeably sharper than usual, denying deep post catches.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +11.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Managed a perfectly neutral impact during a brief rotational cameo. He executed his assignments without forcing the issue, offering a slight defensive bump in his limited minutes. The drastic drop in scoring volume was simply a byproduct of his severely restricted playing time.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1