Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead MEM lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MEM 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jackson Jr. 12/22 +5.9
Coward 6/12 +1.6
Aldama 6/11 +4.5
Williams Jr. Hard 3/7 +1.2
Spencer Hard 2/7 -3.1
Wells 1/7 -5.4
Jackson 5/6 +6.6
Konchar 2/4 +0.2
Caldwell-Pope Hard 0/4 -4.1
Landale Hard 1/3 +0.2

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 9/16 +2.9
Wagner 6/16 -1.8
Black 7/13 +3.7
Bane Open 5/13 -5.2
da Silva 3/11 -5.7
Carter Jr. 3/7 -1.3
Penda 3/6 -0.4
Bitadze Open 2/5 -2.5
Jones Hard 1/5 -3.0
Wagner Hard 2/3 +2.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MEM
ORL
38/83 Field Goals 41/95
45.8% Field Goal % 43.2%
17/36 3-Pointers 15/40
47.2% 3-Point % 37.5%
18/21 Free Throws 21/23
85.7% Free Throw % 91.3%
60.2% True Shooting % 56.1%
44 Total Rebounds 63
7 Offensive 19
30 Defensive 35
27 Assists 28
1.69 Assist/TO Ratio 1.75
16 Turnovers 16
5 Steals 9
6 Blocks 4
18 Fouls 15
38 Points in Paint 50
12 Fast Break Pts 20
19 Points off TOs 24
12 Second Chance Pts 14
49 Bench Points 31
20 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Paolo Banchero
26 PTS · 13 REB · 4 AST · 37.1 MIN
+32.74
2
Anthony Black
21 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 35.5 MIN
+20.93
3
Jaren Jackson Jr.
30 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 32.6 MIN
+19.73
4
Santi Aldama
18 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 30.3 MIN
+15.11
5
GG Jackson
15 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 22.1 MIN
+14.77
6
Tristan da Silva
8 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 21.5 MIN
+10.8
7
Cam Spencer
7 PTS · 7 REB · 11 AST · 27.0 MIN
+10.39
8
Cedric Coward
17 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.4 MIN
+8.74
9
Wendell Carter Jr.
9 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 28.5 MIN
+8.27
10
Franz Wagner
18 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 26.7 MIN
+7.54
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 F. Wagner REBOUND (Off:5 Def:4) 111–118
Q4 0:08 MISS C. Coward 3PT 111–118
Q4 0:08 D. Bane Free Throw 2 of 2 (13 PTS) 111–118
Q4 0:08 D. Bane Free Throw 1 of 2 (12 PTS) 111–117
Q4 0:08 S. Aldama take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Bane 2 FT) 111–116
Q4 0:10 C. Coward driving Layup (17 PTS) 111–116
Q4 0:15 F. Wagner Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 109–116
Q4 0:15 F. Wagner Free Throw 1 of 2 (17 PTS) 109–115
Q4 0:15 V. Williams Jr. take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Wagner 2 FT) 109–114
Q4 0:21 C. Coward bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 109–114
Q4 0:26 C. Spencer REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 109–114
Q4 0:29 MISS P. Banchero 9' turnaround fadeaway Shot 109–114
Q4 0:44 W. Carter Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 109–114
Q4 0:47 MISS C. Coward 22' pullup Shot 109–114
Q4 1:03 F. Wagner 11' driving floating Jump Shot (16 PTS) (D. Bane 5 AST) 109–114

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

ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.1m
26
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+37.6

An absolutely dominant two-way performance defined by suffocating defense and highly efficient volume scoring. He dictated the physical terms of the matchup on both ends, elevating his offensive production well above his recent baseline while completely locking down his assignments.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +20.3
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +16.5
Defense +6.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Black 35.5m
21
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.3

Two-way versatility was on full display as he paired sharp perimeter shooting with highly disruptive defensive rotations. His relentless motor consistently generated transition opportunities, making him a catalyst for the team's overall success.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 33.8m
13
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

Clunky perimeter shooting and forced offensive looks severely hampered his overall rating despite a strong defensive showing. The steep decline in his usual scoring efficiency created empty possessions that the opposition routinely capitalized on.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

A sudden regression in offensive assertiveness snapped a streak of highly efficient outings, pulling his overall rating into the negative. He struggled to find his spots against the interior defense, resulting in a steep scoring drop-off that outweighed his steady defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Franz Wagner 26.7m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

A high volume of missed interior looks dragged his efficiency down, neutralizing the value of his excellent hustle metrics. While his outside stroke was pure, his inability to finish through traffic at his usual rate kept his overall impact hovering just below zero.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Exceptional defensive instincts completely salvaged what was otherwise a disastrous shooting performance. Even as his offensive production plummeted well below his recent average, his ability to blow up opposing actions kept him firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +9.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Penda 17.6m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Despite enjoying a massive offensive surge compared to his usual microscopic output, minor defensive liabilities kept his overall impact slightly negative. He capitalized on rare scoring opportunities but struggled to consistently impact the game when the ball wasn't in his hands.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

High-energy minutes and efficient situational scoring allowed him to maximize his brief time on the floor. He doubled his usual offensive output while providing a physical spark that disrupted the opponent's interior rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 12.5m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.0

Continued his brutal recent shooting slump, failing to generate any offensive rhythm or floor spacing. The lack of scoring punch combined with negative defensive metrics made him a distinct liability during his time on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
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
Goga Bitadze 12.4m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Solid rim protection and active rebounding in limited minutes drove a highly efficient positive rating. He played strictly within his role, setting bruising screens and anchoring the paint effectively during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
30
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.0

Elite two-way execution drove a massive positive rating, anchored by dominant interior defense and highly efficient multi-level scoring. His ability to stretch the floor while maintaining a heavy offensive workload created consistent mismatch problems for the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +23.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +7.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jock Landale 29.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite solid activity on the glass and decent defensive positioning, a sharp drop-off in offensive involvement dragged his overall score into the red. He failed to capitalize on his touches, breaking a streak of highly efficient shooting performances to become a non-factor in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 27.4m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Strong perimeter containment and timely closeouts fueled a robust defensive rating that kept his overall impact positive. He maintained his recent offensive rhythm with confident outside shooting, providing reliable secondary spacing throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Cam Spencer 26.9m
7
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+2.5

Elite playmaking completely salvaged a rough shooting night, as his high-level ball distribution generated crucial open looks for teammates. High-effort hustle plays and steady defensive rotations ensured he remained a net positive despite his individual scoring struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 17.8m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.3

A severe offensive regression tanked his overall impact, as he bricked nearly all of his attempts from the floor while seeing his production plummet well below his recent baseline. Poor shot selection and forced perimeter looks completely overshadowed a mildly positive defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 30.3m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.3

Perfect execution from beyond the arc combined with exceptional hustle metrics to drive a sterling overall rating. His relentless energy on loose balls and flawless perimeter spacing forced the defense into impossible rotation choices.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
GG Jackson 22.1m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Near-flawless shot selection and perfect perimeter execution fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He capitalized on every touch within the flow of the offense, masking a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 109.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.8

Tremendous hustle metrics were ultimately undone by minor defensive lapses and inconsistent shooting. His high motor generated extra possessions, but an inability to string together stops kept his overall impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
John Konchar 18.4m
6
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Low-usage efficiency and fundamentally sound defensive positioning allowed him to post a positive rating in limited action. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead relying on timely rebounding and smart rotations to quietly impact the game.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +8.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-20.0

An absolute offensive zero in this matchup, his inability to connect on any field goal attempts severely handicapped the floor spacing. While his perimeter defense remained respectable, the empty offensive possessions created a massive drag on the team's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3