Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Tyson Hard 13/17 +15.3
Hunter 7/13 +1.8
Mitchell Hard 4/13 -0.4
Mobley 6/11 +0.6
Tomlin Open 4/9 -3.5
Proctor 5/8 +3.9
Allen Open 4/6 +0.7
Porter Jr. 1/5 -2.7
Ball Hard 0/3 -2.6

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 9/23 -3.6
Embiid Hard 10/22 +1.7
George Hard 6/12 +2.7
Grimes 5/12 -1.1
Oubre Jr. Hard 4/7 +2.5
Edgecombe 4/5 +4.4
Bona Open 2/3 -0.2
Barlow Open 1/3 -1.6
Watford Open 2/2 +1.2
Walker Hard 0/2 -1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
PHI
44/85 Field Goals 43/91
51.8% Field Goal % 47.3%
17/34 3-Pointers 12/32
50.0% 3-Point % 37.5%
12/17 Free Throws 17/19
70.6% Free Throw % 89.5%
63.3% True Shooting % 57.9%
54 Total Rebounds 44
10 Offensive 13
32 Defensive 24
38 Assists 28
2.11 Assist/TO Ratio 2.55
18 Turnovers 10
7 Steals 11
5 Blocks 8
15 Fouls 15
48 Points in Paint 38
14 Fast Break Pts 23
15 Points off TOs 32
16 Second Chance Pts 13
38 Bench Points 34
2 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaylon Tyson
39 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 38.2 MIN
+31.6
2
Joel Embiid
33 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 33.1 MIN
+27.34
3
Tyrese Maxey
22 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 38.7 MIN
+26.1
4
Tyrese Proctor
13 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 11.2 MIN
+15.42
5
Paul George
14 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 30.3 MIN
+14.54
6
De'Andre Hunter
16 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 30.8 MIN
+12.93
7
Evan Mobley
15 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 36.4 MIN
+12.55
8
Dominick Barlow
2 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 16.9 MIN
+10.76
9
Kelly Oubre Jr.
12 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 26.1 MIN
+10.51
10
Quentin Grimes
14 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 31.5 MIN
+8.91
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 117–115
Q4 0:00 PHI Heave 117–115
Q4 0:04 E. Mobley DUNK (15 PTS) (J. Tyson 4 AST) 117–115
Q4 0:08 T. Maxey 8' driving floating Jump Shot (22 PTS) (J. Embiid 3 AST) 115–115
Q4 0:22 E. Mobley Free Throw 2 of 2 (13 PTS) 115–113
Q4 0:22 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–113
Q4 0:22 MISS E. Mobley Free Throw 1 of 2 114–113
Q4 0:22 K. Oubre Jr. shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Mobley 2 FT) 114–113
Q4 0:23 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–113
Q4 0:24 T. Maxey BLOCK (2 BLK) 114–113
Q4 0:24 MISS D. Mitchell 6' driving Layup - blocked 114–113
Q4 0:40 D. Mitchell REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 114–113
Q4 0:42 MISS P. George 12' turnaround fadeaway Shot 114–113
Q4 1:05 D. Hunter running Layup (16 PTS) (D. Mitchell 12 AST) 114–113
Q4 1:13 E. Mobley REBOUND (Off:3 Def:2) 112–113

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 Tyrese Maxey 38.7m
22
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+19.5

Elite defensive pressure (+15.5 Def) and relentless hustle completely overshadowed a highly inefficient shooting night. He made up for his missed jumpers by terrorizing ball-handlers and generating transition opportunities through sheer effort. His motor never stopped running, turning a poor shooting performance into a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +11.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 34.6m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.9

A sharp decline in offensive aggression tanked his overall impact despite hyper-efficient shooting. He floated on the perimeter instead of attacking the paint, while offering zero resistance on the defensive end (-0.1 Def). The lack of assertiveness allowed the opponent to completely ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 33.1m
33
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+26.2

Overwhelming offensive volume battered the interior defense and drove a massive +27.6 box score rating. Even with somewhat pedestrian defensive metrics by his standards, his ability to draw fouls and command double-teams dictated the entire flow of the game. He simply overpowered his individual matchups through sheer physical dominance.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +24.4
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paul George 30.3m
14
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

A massive drop in scoring volume was offset by elite defensive disruption (+7.5 Def) and active hands. He recognized his shot wasn't falling and pivoted to locking down the perimeter. This veteran adjustment kept his overall impact firmly in the green despite a quiet offensive night.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 16.9m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

An absolute masterclass in defensive positioning generated a staggering +10.6 defensive impact score in limited minutes. He completely abandoned his recent scoring touch to focus entirely on rim protection and blowing up pick-and-rolls. It was a textbook example of influencing winning without needing the basketball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite decent counting stats, his overall impact cratered due to poor shot selection and stagnant off-ball movement. He settled for contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts, breaking the offense's rhythm. The defensive effort was passable, but it couldn't rescue a fundamentally disjointed offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Efficient scoring bursts were negated by a lack of defensive resistance and low overall engagement. He failed to make an impact on the glass or in passing lanes, rendering him a one-dimensional threat. When he wasn't actively shooting the ball, he was essentially a passenger on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 14.9m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

High-energy rim running and sturdy interior defense (+5.5 Def) squeezed maximum value out of a short rotation shift. He embraced his role perfectly, setting hard screens and contesting everything at the basket. This is exactly the type of low-maintenance, high-motor performance that anchors a successful bench unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Perfect shooting efficiency couldn't mask a completely invisible performance in the hustle and defensive departments. He failed to register a single hustle play, allowing opponents to win every 50/50 ball in his vicinity. The lack of physical engagement dragged what should have been a positive stint into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.5

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by forced shots and a complete lack of hustle metrics. He failed to find the flow of the game, clanking his attempts while offering nothing on the boards. The negative impact score reflects empty minutes that actively stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
13
pts
9
reb
12
ast
Impact
-2.2

A brutal shooting slump cratered his overall impact despite respectable defensive engagement. Forcing contested looks led to a steep drop in scoring efficiency, completely erasing the value of his high-volume playmaking. His inability to find an offensive rhythm dragged down the entire starting unit.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +6.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jaylon Tyson 38.2m
39
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+31.2

An incredible offensive explosion drove a massive +31.1 box score impact, completely shattering his recent scoring averages. Elite shot selection and blistering perimeter efficiency masked average defensive metrics. This sudden scoring surge fundamentally tilted the game by punishing every defensive rotation.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 99.3%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +35.9
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +9.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Evan Mobley 36.4m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Despite solid defensive anchoring (+6.8 Def) and consistent interior efficiency, his overall impact slipped into the negative. A slight dip in his usual offensive aggression limited his ceiling compared to his recent dominant stretch. He spent too much time deferring rather than forcing the issue in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 4
S Jarrett Allen 33.2m
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Elite activity on the glass and loose balls generated a massive +8.0 hustle rating, keeping his floor high. However, a significant drop in offensive volume neutralized his overall net impact. He played the role of a garbage-man perfectly but lacked the dominant finishing touches of his recent outings.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense -3.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
-10.9

Heavy playmaking volume couldn't salvage a disastrous net impact driven by complete offensive passivity. Defenses dared him to shoot, and his refusal to attack the rim allowed opponents to cheat off him constantly. The high assist total was a mirage that masked how much his lack of scoring gravity hurt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +30.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Steady two-way play resulted in a mildly positive impact, anchored by reliable mid-range shot creation. He provided essential connective tissue with strong hustle metrics (+5.6) and timely defensive rotations. It was a workmanlike performance defined by taking exactly what the defense gave him.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

An unexpected scoring boost provided a nice box score lift, but defensive lapses (-0.5 Def) bled value on the other end. He struggled to maintain positioning against stronger matchups, neutralizing his offensive gains. The flashes of scoring versatility were overshadowed by consistent rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense -5.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 11.6m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

A complete zero in the scoring column severely handicapped his offensive utility, leading to a negative overall score. He managed to stay on the floor through high-IQ defensive reads (+3.2 Def) and active hands in passing lanes. Ultimately, you cannot survive as a guard without putting any pressure on the rim.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

A hyper-efficient shooting display from deep punished defensive closeouts and drove a stellar +11.0 net rating. He paired this offensive breakout with suffocating point-of-attack defense (+4.8 Def) to dominate his minutes. This two-way spark plug performance perfectly capitalized on his recent upward trajectory.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0