Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 164 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Traore 7/13 +2.3
Porter Jr. Hard 2/13 -7.3
Dëmin Hard 8/12 +9.3
Wolf 5/11 -1.7
Powell 3/9 -4.5
Claxton Open 6/8 +2.1
Clowney Hard 0/6 -6.4
Sharpe Open 2/4 -1.1
Saraf 1/4 -2.3
Williams 0/2 -2.5

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Bane 7/14 -1.5
Banchero 8/13 +1.3
Black 6/12 +0.4
Wagner Open 6/10 -0.1
Suggs Hard 6/9 +5.9
Carter Jr. 3/6 +0.8
Howard Hard 3/6 +0.7
da Silva 1/4 -2.0
Richardson Hard 0/4 -4.1
Bitadze Open 3/3 +2.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
ORL
34/82 Field Goals 44/82
41.5% Field Goal % 53.7%
12/39 3-Pointers 9/32
30.8% 3-Point % 28.1%
18/29 Free Throws 21/27
62.1% Free Throw % 77.8%
51.7% True Shooting % 62.8%
46 Total Rebounds 57
11 Offensive 9
25 Defensive 33
22 Assists 32
1.16 Assist/TO Ratio 1.88
19 Turnovers 13
7 Steals 14
2 Blocks 11
24 Fouls 21
40 Points in Paint 64
16 Fast Break Pts 15
17 Points off TOs 24
11 Second Chance Pts 15
28 Bench Points 33
0 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Suggs
15 PTS · 11 REB · 11 AST · 29.1 MIN
+27.85
2
Desmond Bane
23 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 31.8 MIN
+24.17
3
Egor Dëmin
26 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 32.0 MIN
+20.02
4
Paolo Banchero
22 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 31.4 MIN
+18.5
5
Anthony Black
18 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 27.6 MIN
+16.08
6
Nolan Traore
21 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 38.0 MIN
+12.55
7
Nic Claxton
14 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 28.8 MIN
+11.87
8
Wendell Carter Jr.
7 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 21.8 MIN
+9.94
9
Goga Bitadze
6 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 6.0 MIN
+8.16
10
Danny Wolf
13 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 21.9 MIN
+7.24
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 ORL shot clock Team TURNOVER 98–118
Q4 0:26 N. Traore 3PT (21 PTS) (B. Saraf 4 AST) 98–118
Q4 0:29 D. Powell REBOUND (Off:3 Def:0) 95–118
Q4 0:34 G. Bitadze BLOCK (1 BLK) 95–118
Q4 0:34 MISS D. Powell 25' 3PT - blocked 95–118
Q4 0:47 J. Howard 6' driving floating bank Jump Shot (7 PTS) 95–118
Q4 1:02 D. Wolf running DUNK (13 PTS) 95–116
Q4 1:04 D. Wolf REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 93–116
Q4 1:08 MISS J. Richardson 25' pullup 3PT 93–116
Q4 1:17 E. Dëmin Free Throw 3 of 3 (26 PTS) 93–116
Q4 1:17 E. Dëmin Free Throw 2 of 3 (25 PTS) 92–116
Q4 1:17 TEAM offensive REBOUND 91–116
Q4 1:17 MISS E. Dëmin Free Throw 1 of 3 91–116
Q4 1:17 N. Penda shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Dëmin 3 FT) 91–116
Q4 1:29 J. Howard running DUNK (5 PTS) 91–116

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 Desmond Bane 31.8m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.1

Exceptional defensive anticipation and relentless hustle drove a massive positive rating, completely overshadowing a frigid night from beyond the arc. He lived in the passing lanes and constantly disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, turning defensive stops into high-percentage transition looks. His ability to impact winning without his three-point shot falling is a testament to his two-way motor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +17.0
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +9.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 31.4m
22
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.4

Bully-ball drives and efficient finishing in the mid-range fueled a highly productive offensive shift. He consistently punished switches, forcing the defense to collapse and creating a gravitational pull that opened up the floor. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 29.1m
15
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+20.9

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, driven by suffocating perimeter defense and flawless offensive orchestration. He completely dictated the tempo, hounding opposing guards into mistakes while perfectly reading the floor to dissect the defense. His relentless ball pressure and elite decision-making in transition resulted in a staggering net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +4.6
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense +9.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 3
S Anthony Black 27.6m
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.5

Slashing to the rim with purpose and generating deflections at the point of attack resulted in a dominant two-way performance. He consistently broke down the first line of defense, creating chaos in the paint that led to easy dump-offs. His length on the perimeter suffocated ball-handlers and sparked several fast-break opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.4

Elite rim deterrence and textbook screen-setting were the primary drivers of his positive impact, even with a significantly reduced scoring load. He anchored the paint masterfully, forcing opponents into tough, contested floaters. His willingness to do the dirty work by sealing defenders and altering shots was far more valuable than raw offensive output.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.6

Strong on-ball defensive efforts were completely undone by a total inability to generate offense. He failed to connect on any of his attempts, allowing his defender to aggressively cheat off him and blow up actions on the strong side. The offensive spacing issues he created negated the value of his high-energy defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and poor finishing at the rim dragged his impact into the negative. While he maintained solid defensive positioning and chipped in with timely rotations, his inability to capitalize on offensive advantages stalled the unit's momentum. He simply couldn't find the soft spots in the zone that usually fuel his scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Noah Penda 14.2m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.5

Complete offensive invisibility and defensive misreads resulted in a highly damaging stint on the floor. He failed to register a single shot attempt, allowing the defense to play five-on-four, while simultaneously bleeding value through poor closeouts. His lack of aggression made him a liability on both ends of the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jett Howard 12.3m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Timely cutting and a willingness to attack closeouts kept his impact slightly in the green. Even though his outside shot wasn't falling at a high clip, his movement off the ball forced defensive rotations and opened up driving lanes. He survived defensively just enough to ensure his offensive contributions held their value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

An unexpected explosion of interior scoring and relentless energy plays completely shifted the game's momentum during his minutes. He feasted on backup bigs in the pick-and-roll, finishing through contact and generating crucial extra possessions. His infectious motor and efficiency around the basket made him an undeniable spark plug.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 40.6%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.6

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a negative rating primarily due to a lack of offensive involvement. He was effectively a ghost on the offensive end, taking no shots and failing to bend the defense. Even his typically elite defensive presence was muted, as opponents simply attacked away from his side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +72.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 6.0m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Minimal court time and a lack of overall involvement resulted in a nearly neutral, slightly negative impact. He knocked down his only look but failed to generate any secondary hustle events or defensive stops to swing the needle. It was a pure placeholder shift that neither helped nor hurt the team significantly.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Perfect execution in the pick-and-roll and immediate rim pressure maximized his value in a very short window. He set bruising screens and dove hard to the basket, converting every opportunity he touched. His brief burst of hyper-efficient interior play provided a massive jolt to the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nolan Traore 38.0m
21
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.7

A massive scoring surge wasn't enough to keep his overall impact in the green due to underlying defensive bleed. Even though he found a phenomenal rhythm attacking off the dribble, his off-ball passivity and failure to generate secondary hustle events allowed opponents to capitalize in transition. The raw shot-making masked how often he was targeted in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter completely tanked his overall impact. While he managed to salvage a bit of value through off-ball hustle and defensive positioning, the sheer volume of empty possessions on offense was too much to overcome. His inability to punish closeouts forced the offense to stall repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 31.9m
26
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.5

Blistering perimeter shot-making was the sole engine behind his positive impact rating. He capitalized on every catch-and-shoot opportunity, stretching the defense to its breaking point and masking his otherwise quiet defensive metrics. When a player is this lethal from deep, the lack of secondary hustle stats becomes an afterthought.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +22.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 28.8m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

Elite finishing around the rim drove a highly efficient offensive showing that anchored his positive rating. He consistently beat his man to the spot, generating high-quality looks while providing steady rim protection on the other end. His vertical spacing was a constant threat that warped the opponent's defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Noah Clowney 21.9m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.1

Despite bringing excellent energy on the glass and holding his own defensively, a total offensive zero completely cratered his net score. Missing every single look from the floor allowed the defense to sag off and clog the paint. That lack of shooting gravity erased the positive momentum generated by his high-motor hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring -4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 21.9m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

A balanced, two-way effort resulted in a perfectly neutral net rating despite a notable scoring bump. He showed great touch around the basket and contested well at the rim, but a few forced shots in traffic limited his ceiling. His ability to anchor the second unit's defense was the glue that kept the lineup afloat.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Drake Powell 19.0m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Poor shot selection from the perimeter and defensive miscommunications resulted in a negative overall showing. He repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, short-circuiting offensive momentum. Opponents also found too much success attacking his closeouts, compounding the damage of his bricked threes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense kept him viable, but a complete offensive disappearance dragged his net score into the red. He passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim, allowing his defender to act as a free safety. The stark contrast between his elite defensive metrics and non-existent offensive footprint defined his night.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 15.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
Ben Saraf 16.1m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.8

Inability to find any sort of offensive rhythm resulted in a steep negative impact during his minutes. He struggled to turn the corner against drop coverage, leading to stagnant possessions and low-quality attempts. Without disruptive defensive plays to offset the offensive struggles, his floor time was highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Gritty interior work and timely offensive rebounding kept his impact hovering just above neutral. He carved out space in the paint effectively, creating second-chance opportunities that bailed out stalled possessions. It was a workmanlike stint defined by physicality rather than flash.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1