Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Simons Hard 8/15 +8.4
Ivey 5/12 -0.2
Williams Hard 3/12 -2.1
Buzelis 7/11 +3.1
Yabusele 6/11 +2.0
Smith Open 6/11 -1.6
Okoro 3/8 -3.8
McClung 2/7 -3.9
Kawamura 1/4 -1.6

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram Hard 12/20 +10.3
Quickley Hard 9/20 +3.1
Barnes 6/11 +1.3
Mamukelashvili Hard 5/9 +4.6
Murray-Boyles Open 8/9 +4.2
Walter Open 6/9 +0.5
Shead Hard 1/3 0.0
Dick Open 1/3 -1.7
Battle Open 1/3 -1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
TOR
41/91 Field Goals 49/87
45.1% Field Goal % 56.3%
18/49 3-Pointers 14/34
36.7% 3-Point % 41.2%
7/8 Free Throws 11/13
87.5% Free Throw % 84.6%
56.6% True Shooting % 66.3%
47 Total Rebounds 44
13 Offensive 8
25 Defensive 27
28 Assists 35
1.65 Assist/TO Ratio 2.92
15 Turnovers 11
9 Steals 10
4 Blocks 7
13 Fouls 11
44 Points in Paint 60
7 Fast Break Pts 17
16 Points off TOs 22
11 Second Chance Pts 20
31 Bench Points 24
1 Largest Lead 17
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Brandon Ingram
33 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 35.3 MIN
+28.17
2
Sandro Mamukelashvili
17 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 23.3 MIN
+23.45
3
Collin Murray-Boyles
17 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 37.2 MIN
+21.23
4
Guerschon Yabusele
15 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 33.2 MIN
+20.62
5
Immanuel Quickley
24 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 30.9 MIN
+19.52
6
Jalen Smith
13 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 24.3 MIN
+15.45
7
Matas Buzelis
18 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 32.6 MIN
+15.37
8
Jaden Ivey
13 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 33.2 MIN
+14.21
9
Ja'Kobe Walter
12 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 30.9 MIN
+13.42
10
Anfernee Simons
22 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 32.0 MIN
+12.28
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 J. Mogbo STEAL (1 STL) 107–123
Q4 0:03 Y. Kawamura bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 107–123
Q4 0:26 J. Walter take personal FOUL (3 PF) 107–123
Q4 0:28 C. Murray-Boyles cutting Layup (17 PTS) (J. Battle 1 AST) 107–123
Q4 0:51 P. Williams 25' 3PT (9 PTS) (L. Olbrich 1 AST) 107–121
Q4 1:13 I. Quickley 17' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (24 PTS) 104–121
Q4 1:36 CHI shot clock Team TURNOVER 104–119
Q4 1:37 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–119
Q4 1:38 MISS Y. Kawamura 26' pullup 3PT 104–119
Q4 1:48 M. Buzelis REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 104–119
Q4 1:50 MISS M. Buzelis 24' running pullup 3PT 104–119
Q4 1:56 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:4 Def:7) 104–119
Q4 2:01 MISS B. Ingram 26' 3PT 104–119
Q4 2:18 A. Simons lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 104–119
Q4 2:34 I. Quickley 3PT (22 PTS) (B. Ingram 6 AST) 104–119

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
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

Flawless interior finishing and suffocating defensive coverage made him the most reliable two-way force on the floor. He extended his streak of hyper-efficient shooting by refusing to settle, punishing mismatches in the paint on nearly every touch.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Brandon Ingram 35.4m
33
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+24.3

An absolute masterclass in shot-making, torching defenders from all three levels to double his recent scoring output. His massive positive impact was driven by unguardable isolation scoring and timely defensive rotations that sparked transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +27.7
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +8.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 32.4m
13
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.6

Despite solid individual efficiency, his minutes were an absolute disaster for the team's bottom line. A lack of defensive resistance and a string of momentum-killing empty possessions allowed the opposition to feast in the open court.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
24
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.2

Relentless aggression defined this performance, as he overcame a rough perimeter shooting night through sheer volume and elite hustle. Constant rim pressure and disruptive on-ball defense kept the opponent on their heels, driving a massive positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ja'Kobe Walter 30.9m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Found a great rhythm offensively to boost his scoring output, but gave it all back on the margins. His negative total impact suggests he was caught out of position during crucial defensive transition sequences, allowing easy counter-punches.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

Stretched the floor beautifully while anchoring the defense, resulting in a game-breaking overall impact. His ability to hit trail threes pulled the opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards all night.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Shead 22.2m
3
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.6

Completely abandoned his scoring role to become an absolute terror on the defensive end. Elite hustle metrics and point-of-attack disruption generated crucial extra possessions, proving you don't need to shoot to control a game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

Provided zero defensive resistance and struggled to find any rhythm in the half-court offense. The negative impact score reflects a player who was simply floating on the perimeter without forcing the defense to react.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 11.6m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.5

Continued to look lost offensively, passing up open looks and failing to generate any gravity on the perimeter. Poor defensive positioning compounded the issue, making him a clear liability during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Logged strictly garbage-time minutes at the end of the rotation. Chipped in a quick hustle play but otherwise just ran out the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

Managed to generate a wild positive impact in just seconds of action through a highly disruptive defensive sequence. A perfectly timed rotation or deflection in the closing moments defined this micro-shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Stepped onto the floor for a mere few seconds. Had absolutely no time to influence the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -0.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Jaden Ivey 33.2m
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-level defensive engagement and hot perimeter shooting were completely undone by inefficient finishing inside the arc. He likely bled value through live-ball turnovers or forced drives, resulting in a net-negative impact despite flashy highlight plays.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 32.6m
18
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.6

Strong individual scoring efficiency and active defensive rotations couldn't quite drag his overall impact into the green. The slight negative total suggests he was caught on the wrong end of opponent transition runs, giving back his offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Anfernee Simons 32.0m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Perimeter shot-making was elite, but a heavy reliance on the three-ball masked a distinct lack of rim pressure. His overall impact dipped into the red due to defensive lapses and an inability to generate high-value looks for teammates when chased off the line.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 81.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 29.8m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

A stark negative overall impact was primarily driven by empty perimeter possessions, as he missed every look from beyond the arc. Despite active hands on defense, his inability to stretch the floor allowed opponents to clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Smith 24.3m
13
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Shattered his recent offensive slump by finishing decisively at the rim and exploiting mismatches in the paint. His two-way presence anchored the interior, combining highly efficient touches with strong defensive rim protection.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +9.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.5

Physicality defined this performance, as he bullied his way to highly efficient interior touches while dominating the glass. Elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle plays set the tone for the frontcourt, completely neutralizing his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +14.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.4

Brutal shot selection inside the arc torpedoed his overall value, resulting in a team-worst impact score. While he broke out of a deep shooting slump from the perimeter, the sheer volume of wasted possessions on forced mid-range looks crippled the offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Mac McClung 13.5m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.0

Erratic decision-making and forced drives into traffic resulted in a massive negative swing during his minutes. A lack of perimeter gravity allowed the defense to collapse, stalling out the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-11.8

Playmaking vision was evident in his limited minutes, but an inability to create his own shot allowed defenders to aggressively play the passing lanes. The negative overall impact stems from being targeted defensively on switches, negating his scrappy point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Barely made a blip on the radar during a very brief stint on the floor. He provided a few energetic hustle plays but ultimately served as a neutral placeholder while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0