Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Durant Hard 13/21 +12.9
Smith Jr. 5/15 -6.1
Sheppard 5/14 -1.2
Sengun 5/14 -4.6
Eason 5/12 -0.3
Thompson Open 7/11 +0.2
Okogie Hard 3/4 +4.0
Finney-Smith Hard 2/4 +1.9
Capela Open 1/4 -3.0

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 15/28 +1.3
Embiid 10/19 +0.4
Oubre Jr. 10/14 +9.0
George 4/9 -0.4
Edgecombe 4/9 -1.0
Barlow Open 3/5 +0.5
Watford Open 2/3 +0.4
Grimes 1/2 -0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
PHI
46/99 Field Goals 49/89
46.5% Field Goal % 55.1%
18/40 3-Pointers 11/32
45.0% 3-Point % 34.4%
12/24 Free Throws 19/22
50.0% Free Throw % 86.4%
55.7% True Shooting % 64.9%
61 Total Rebounds 48
15 Offensive 9
31 Defensive 37
33 Assists 41
1.94 Assist/TO Ratio 2.73
16 Turnovers 15
13 Steals 13
5 Blocks 4
18 Fouls 23
44 Points in Paint 66
28 Fast Break Pts 31
19 Points off TOs 24
21 Second Chance Pts 10
35 Bench Points 15
9 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tyrese Maxey
36 PTS · 2 REB · 10 AST · 42.7 MIN
+31.95
2
Joel Embiid
32 PTS · 15 REB · 10 AST · 45.6 MIN
+28.86
3
Amen Thompson
17 PTS · 6 REB · 9 AST · 41.9 MIN
+23.97
4
Kelly Oubre Jr.
26 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 41.3 MIN
+20.42
5
Tari Eason
13 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 28.0 MIN
+18.49
6
Kevin Durant
36 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 44.0 MIN
+15.86
7
Alperen Sengun
13 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 37.5 MIN
+12.95
8
Paul George
10 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 36.5 MIN
+11.71
9
Dominick Barlow
7 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 21.4 MIN
+11.63
10
VJ Edgecombe
9 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 40.0 MIN
+10.66
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q5 0:06 T. Maxey running DUNK (36 PTS) (J. Embiid 10 AST) 122–128
Q5 0:13 V. Edgecombe STEAL (3 STL) 122–126
Q5 0:13 A. Thompson lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 122–126
Q5 0:18 T. Maxey Free Throw 2 of 2 (34 PTS) 122–126
Q5 0:18 T. Maxey Free Throw 1 of 2 (33 PTS) 122–125
Q5 0:18 A. Thompson take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Maxey 2 FT) 122–124
Q5 0:23 K. Durant 11' driving floating Jump Shot (36 PTS) (T. Eason 2 AST) 122–124
Q5 0:23 T. Eason REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 120–124
Q5 0:27 MISS K. Durant 28' 3PT 120–124
Q5 0:28 A. Thompson REBOUND (Off:4 Def:2) 120–124
Q5 0:31 MISS K. Durant 27' running 3PT 120–124
Q5 0:35 T. Eason STEAL (4 STL) 120–124
Q5 0:35 V. Edgecombe lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 120–124
Q5 0:54 K. Durant offensive foul TURNOVER (8 TO) 120–124
Q5 0:54 K. Durant offensive FOUL (2 PF) 120–124

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 Joel Embiid 45.6m
32
pts
15
reb
10
ast
Impact
+29.3

Commanded the game through sheer physical dominance, drawing double teams that systematically fractured the opponent's defensive shell. His rim protection was equally suffocating, altering countless trajectories to anchor a massive defensive rating. The combination of high-IQ passing out of the post and elite paint enforcement drove a spectacular overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.6m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +18.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Tyrese Maxey 42.7m
36
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+26.8

Leveraged elite burst to constantly penetrate the first line of defense, creating a cascade of high-value scoring opportunities in the paint. Even with a cold night from beyond the arc, his relentless downhill pressure forced defensive rotations that opened up the floor. His ability to orchestrate the offense without coughing up the ball cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 15/28 (53.6%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.7m
Scoring +25.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 41.3m
26
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.8

Fueled a massive positive impact through sheer energy, generating elite hustle metrics by constantly beating opponents down the floor in transition. His shot selection was uncharacteristically disciplined, taking only high-percentage looks within the flow of the offense. This combination of hyper-efficient scoring and relentless off-ball movement completely overwhelmed his primary matchups.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.9%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Scoring +22.7
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 40.0m
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Poor decision-making on the perimeter severely hampered his value, as he repeatedly forced ill-advised shots early in the shot clock. While his defensive intensity and closeouts remained commendable, the empty offensive possessions killed the team's rhythm. This lack of offensive discipline ultimately sank his net rating despite solid underlying hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 36.5m
10
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Provided exceptional weak-side defensive help, consistently blowing up actions before they could materialize at the rim. However, an unusually passive offensive approach and a tendency to settle for contested jumpers kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral. He deferred too often in half-court sets, failing to leverage his usual scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Executed his role perfectly by setting bone-crushing screens and rolling hard to the rim, ensuring high-efficiency finishes. His positional discipline on defense deterred baseline drives and contributed to a sturdy interior presence. By avoiding costly fouls and playing strictly within himself, he provided a highly stable, positive rotational lift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.5

Faded completely into the background offensively, failing to make himself available for kick-outs or exploit defensive gaps. His reluctance to pull the trigger allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and clog the driving lanes for teammates. This extreme passivity, combined with late defensive rotations, resulted in a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Operated as a reliable connector in the half-court, making quick reads that kept the offensive machinery humming. While he didn't generate explosive hustle plays, his fundamental positioning prevented defensive breakdowns. A highly efficient, mistake-free shift allowed him to post a slightly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Adem Bona 7.4m
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.7

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game during his brief stint, constantly finding himself out of position on pick-and-roll coverages. His inability to secure defensive rebounds gave away crucial second-chance opportunities that the opposition immediately punished. A lack of offensive involvement only highlighted his struggles to anchor the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -71.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 44.0m
36
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.2

Despite a massive scoring surge above his recent average, his overall impact plunged into the negative due to back-breaking live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent transition runs. The perimeter shot-making was elite, but defensive lapses on switches allowed easy counter-punches. This high-volume production ultimately masked a fundamentally leaky floor game.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.0m
Scoring +30.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +9.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -19.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
S Amen Thompson 41.9m
17
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+17.1

Relentless downhill attacking created a massive box score footprint, consistently collapsing the defense to generate high-quality looks. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, adding significant defensive value. The only thing capping his total impact was a handful of forced passes in traffic while trying to thread the needle on drives.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +4.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.7

Brutal perimeter shot selection completely cratered his value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep instead of moving the ball. His defensive rotations and hustle metrics remained solid, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. This trigger-happy approach from the outside negated any positive physical play in the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 37.5m
13
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.5

Anchored the interior with exceptional defensive positioning, disrupting multiple actions at the rim to generate a massive defensive impact score. However, a stark drop in his usual finishing efficiency dragged his overall net rating into the red. He struggled to solve the opponent's drop coverage, forcing awkward floaters instead of finding his typical rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 22.4m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Capitalized on limited offensive touches with perfect perimeter execution, punishing defenders who sagged off him. Yet, his overall impact slipped below zero due to uncharacteristically low hustle metrics and late closeouts. He failed to generate the chaotic, momentum-shifting loose ball recoveries that usually define his role.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Tari Eason 28.0m
13
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.5

Wreaked absolute havoc in the passing lanes, utilizing his length to blow up handoffs and generate elite defensive value. His relentless motor on 50/50 balls provided crucial extra possessions that kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. Even with streaky finishing at the rim, his sheer physical exertion dictated the tempo of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +10.5
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to navigate ball pressure, resulting in disrupted offensive sets and poor finishing inside the arc. While his outside stroke remained pure when his feet were set, his inability to turn the corner on pick-and-rolls led to contested, low-efficiency mid-range attempts. The lack of secondary playmaking ultimately dragged his overall effectiveness down.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 15.2m
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Failed to establish any vertical spacing, routinely getting pushed out of his preferred rebounding zones by more physical bigs. His defensive drop coverage was solid enough to deter early drives, but he offered zero resistance on second-chance opportunities. The inability to convert easy dump-off passes further compounded his negative floor impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by confidently stepping into catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners. His off-ball movement stretched the floor effectively, though his defensive rotations were a step slow against quicker wings. Provided just enough spacing and timely hustle plays to keep his net impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0