Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
TOR lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
TOR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 186 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards Hard 11/23 +0.6
Randle 7/18 -4.5
McDaniels 8/13 +3.4
Reid Hard 6/13 +3.1
Hyland Hard 8/12 +8.1
DiVincenzo Hard 5/11 +5.0
Gobert Open 4/4 +2.4
Clark 0/2 -2.5
Juzang Hard 0/1 -0.8

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram 10/22 +0.6
Quickley Hard 8/12 +9.6
Barrett 4/12 -3.4
Barnes 8/11 +4.5
Mamukelashvili 5/10 +0.9
Murray-Boyles Open 6/9 +1.0
Shead 3/8 -2.8
Walter Hard 1/3 -0.1
Dick Open 2/2 +1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
TOR
49/97 Field Goals 47/89
50.5% Field Goal % 52.8%
16/39 3-Pointers 15/31
41.0% 3-Point % 48.4%
14/25 Free Throws 17/24
56.0% Free Throw % 70.8%
59.3% True Shooting % 63.3%
59 Total Rebounds 50
13 Offensive 9
33 Defensive 32
26 Assists 31
2.60 Assist/TO Ratio 2.38
10 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 6
5 Blocks 7
20 Fouls 21
52 Points in Paint 52
20 Fast Break Pts 17
15 Points off TOs 18
20 Second Chance Pts 18
37 Bench Points 30
5 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Anthony Edwards
30 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 37.8 MIN
+25.01
2
Immanuel Quickley
23 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 33.6 MIN
+21.83
3
Bones Hyland
20 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 26.0 MIN
+21.47
4
Scottie Barnes
22 PTS · 10 REB · 8 AST · 36.6 MIN
+21.46
5
Brandon Ingram
25 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 35.0 MIN
+17.74
6
Collin Murray-Boyles
13 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 25.3 MIN
+17.47
7
Naz Reid
17 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 28.7 MIN
+16.33
8
Jaden McDaniels
19 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 39.7 MIN
+14.8
9
Rudy Gobert
10 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 32.9 MIN
+14.48
10
Donte DiVincenzo
15 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 31.0 MIN
+11.21
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 B. Ingram 27' 3PT turnaround (25 PTS) (S. Barnes 8 AST) 128–126
Q4 0:03 J. Randle Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 128–123
Q4 0:03 TEAM offensive REBOUND 127–123
Q4 0:03 MISS J. Randle Free Throw 1 of 2 127–123
Q4 0:03 R. Barrett take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Randle 2 FT) 127–123
Q4 0:04 S. Barnes offensive goaltending TURNOVER (3 TO) 127–123
Q4 0:09 A. Edwards Free Throw 2 of 2 (30 PTS) 127–123
Q4 0:09 TEAM offensive REBOUND 126–123
Q4 0:09 MISS A. Edwards Free Throw 1 of 2 126–123
Q4 0:09 J. Shead take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Edwards 2 FT) 126–123
Q4 0:10 I. Quickley driving Layup (23 PTS) 126–123
Q4 0:15 J. McDaniels running DUNK (19 PTS) (D. DiVincenzo 5 AST) 126–121
Q4 0:17 A. Edwards STEAL (3 STL) 124–121
Q4 0:17 J. Shead bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 124–121
Q4 0:19 J. Shead REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 124–121

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 36.6m
22
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.5

Dominated the physical matchups inside, using his size to generate high-percentage looks and second-chance opportunities. His impact score took a hit solely due to a cluster of offensive fouls drawn by Minnesota's frontcourt during a sloppy third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +19.1
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 35.0m
25
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.5

Midrange volume kept the offense afloat, but a high rate of dead-ball turnovers and forced isolations severely capped his overall value. He repeatedly stalled the ball against Minnesota's set defense, allowing the shot clock to drain before settling for highly contested looks.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+16.4

Blistering perimeter execution stretched the defense to its breaking point, opening up driving lanes for his teammates. The massive gap between his pristine box score and moderate total impact reflects a handful of ill-advised live-ball turnovers when trying to split the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +19.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 28.4m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

A brutal night of forcing drives into heavy traffic resulted in blocked shots and transition run-outs for the Timberwolves. Though he competed hard on the defensive end, the sheer number of empty offensive possessions cratered his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Thrived in the dunker spot by converting dump-off passes and maintaining relentless activity on the offensive glass. His disciplined verticality at the rim deterred several drives without sending opponents to the free-throw line.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Showed excellent touch around the basket but gave the value right back by biting on pump fakes and committing cheap fouls. His inability to secure long rebounds during a crucial fourth-quarter stretch allowed Minnesota to generate back-breaking extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 22.2m
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.6

Pacing issues plagued his minutes, as he frequently picked up his dribble too early and threw dangerous cross-court passes. The defensive intensity was present, but the offensive execution was too erratic to sustain any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.8

Looked hesitant to let it fly against closeouts, which bogged down the offensive flow during his rotation. A couple of missed defensive assignments on back-door cuts further tanked his overall contribution.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 13.0m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Capitalized on limited touches by relocating perfectly along the baseline for easy finishes. Kept his mistakes to a minimum, playing a clean, low-usage role that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 39.7m
19
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.2

Offensive production was completely undermined by a disastrous floor game plagued by costly live-ball turnovers. The negative impact stems entirely from giving possessions away against Toronto's aggressive wings and compounding those errors with poor transition fouls.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 37.8m
30
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.6

Relentless point-of-attack defense defined this outing, completely suffocating opposing guards on the perimeter. While his outside jumper was flat, his sheer volume of high-quality rim pressure and elite hustle plays kept his net impact exceptionally high.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +20.1
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Julius Randle 35.6m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

Shot selection completely derailed his overall value, as forced isolation jumpers led to long rebounds and transition runs for the opponent. His inability to string together stops in the pick-and-roll dragged his defensive rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 32.9m
10
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.5

Anchored the paint effectively with timely weakside rotations, generating a massive defensive boost against downhill drives. However, his overall impact was severely muted by offensive fouls on moving screens and a tendency to clog driving lanes during key second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +12.3
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite perimeter spacing was entirely negated by a string of careless passing errors in the half-court that fueled opponent fast breaks. He was repeatedly targeted on defense during switch situations, bleeding points that erased the value of his hot shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 28.6m
17
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.6

Provided a massive spark off the bench by consistently beating his man down the floor for early post seals. His positive impact was slightly dampened by over-aggressive closeouts that resulted in costly shooting fouls on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 26.0m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.2

Controlled the tempo masterfully during the non-Gobert minutes, combining decisive downhill drives with active hands in the passing lanes. His shot selection was pristine, totally avoiding the forced pull-ups that usually drag down his efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +17.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.0

Struggled to find a rhythm during a brief stint, rushing a couple of contested looks at the rim that killed offensive momentum. Managed to salvage some value through tenacious on-ball pressure against the opposing bench unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.1

Barely saw the floor but managed to disrupt one passing lane in garbage time. A quick forced jumper out of rhythm accounted for the slight negative dip in his micro-stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +70.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Subbed in for a fleeting situational possession at the end of a quarter. Did not register enough floor time to accumulate any measurable impact on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.3
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0