Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead ATL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ATL 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 174 attempts

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 9/22 -7.4
McCollum 6/13 +1.7
Daniels Open 7/12 -1.4
Alexander-Walker Hard 4/11 -1.6
Okongwu 4/9 -2.0
Risacher 4/8 0.0
Landale 3/6 +1.6
Kispert 1/5 -2.4
Gueye Open 0/2 -2.2

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey 8/23 -5.0
Edgecombe Hard 7/15 +3.5
Oubre Jr. 4/13 -5.8
Grimes 5/9 +2.4
Drummond Open 4/6 +1.2
Watford 1/6 -3.7
Bona Open 3/5 -0.5
Walker Hard 1/3 -0.3
Payne Hard 0/3 -2.7
Barlow 0/3 -3.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ATL
PHI
38/88 Field Goals 33/86
43.2% Field Goal % 38.4%
10/32 3-Pointers 11/33
31.2% 3-Point % 33.3%
31/40 Free Throws 30/37
77.5% Free Throw % 81.1%
55.4% True Shooting % 52.3%
65 Total Rebounds 54
13 Offensive 12
37 Defensive 34
24 Assists 17
1.71 Assist/TO Ratio 1.06
13 Turnovers 15
11 Steals 9
5 Blocks 13
23 Fouls 27
54 Points in Paint 38
25 Fast Break Pts 19
22 Points off TOs 9
27 Second Chance Pts 13
38 Bench Points 31
14 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Johnson
32 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 37.6 MIN
+23.36
2
CJ McCollum
23 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 30.1 MIN
+21.9
3
Andre Drummond
10 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 27.9 MIN
+19.25
4
Tyrese Maxey
28 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 38.8 MIN
+15.81
5
Zaccharie Risacher
10 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 27.2 MIN
+13.41
6
Kelly Oubre Jr.
17 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 32.3 MIN
+12.69
7
Adem Bona
9 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 19.7 MIN
+11.57
8
Jock Landale
10 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 21.7 MIN
+11.45
9
Dyson Daniels
15 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 36.6 MIN
+9.11
10
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
14 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 33.1 MIN
+8.31
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 O. Okongwu REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 117–107
Q4 0:13 MISS T. Maxey 26' pullup 3PT 117–107
Q4 0:20 C. McCollum driving Layup (23 PTS) 117–107
Q4 0:40 J. Johnson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:10) 115–107
Q4 0:43 MISS V. Edgecombe 26' pullup 3PT 115–107
Q4 0:51 J. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 (32 PTS) 115–107
Q4 0:51 J. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 (31 PTS) 114–107
Q4 0:51 T. Maxey technical Free Throw 1 of 1 (28 PTS) 113–107
Q4 0:51 J. Johnson technical FOUL (1 Tech) 113–106
Q4 0:51 T. Maxey shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Johnson 2 FT) 113–106
Q4 1:10 O. Okongwu REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 113–106
Q4 1:14 MISS T. Maxey 28' step back 3PT 113–106
Q4 1:27 A. Drummond REBOUND (Off:5 Def:9) 113–106
Q4 1:30 MISS J. Johnson Free Throw 2 of 2 113–106
Q4 1:30 J. Johnson Free Throw 1 of 2 (30 PTS) 113–106

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 38.8m
28
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.2

Chased offensive volume at the expense of efficiency, repeatedly settling for highly contested perimeter isolation looks. The sheer number of empty trips allowed the opponent to consistently leak out in transition. While his burst generated some rim pressure, the overall shot selection actively harmed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 33.7m
20
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

The raw scoring output completely masked a sloppy performance riddled with momentum-killing turnovers and poor decision-making in transition. He frequently derailed the offensive flow by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. Despite showing flashes of energetic hustle, his careless ball security drove his impact score firmly into the gutter.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 32.3m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

A heavy diet of forced, contested drives tanked his offensive efficiency and dragged his overall score into the red. He managed to salvage some value by drawing contact in the paint and playing highly disruptive on-ball defense. However, the sheer volume of wasted possessions from the perimeter ultimately outweighed his gritty defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 27.9m
10
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.6

Dominated the interior with bruising screens and elite positional rebounding that completely controlled the possession battle. Surprisingly stepping out to drain a perimeter jumper highlighted an incredibly efficient offensive night. His massive physical presence anchored the drop coverage, directly fueling a highly lucrative net positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +12.9
Defense -2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Dominick Barlow 22.3m
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Operated as a complete offensive liability, failing to convert on his limited touches around the basket. While his rim-deterrence and switchability yielded a strong defensive rating, his inability to punish mismatches crippled the team's half-court spacing. The offense essentially played four-on-five during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Suffered a catastrophic impact score entirely driven by being relentlessly hunted on the defensive end. Opposing guards easily blew past his point-of-attack coverage, forcing the entire defensive shell into constant rotation. His efficient spot-up shooting was rendered completely moot by how much he bled points on the other side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Adem Bona 19.7m
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Completely altered the geometry of the court with terrifying weak-side rim protection and switchable pick-and-roll defense. His relentless vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for his teammates. This elite defensive anchoring and high-energy rim-running resulted in a dominant overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense +1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

Tanked his unit's momentum by forcing awkward, contested floaters in the lane instead of keeping the ball moving. His lack of foot speed was consistently exposed in space, allowing opponents to generate easy dribble penetration. A highly damaging stint defined by poor offensive processing and defensive physical limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Struggled to find the speed of the game during a brief rotation, frequently arriving late on weak-side defensive rotations. Sinking a lone perimeter shot provided a minor boost, but he was too easily displaced in the paint. Ultimately, he failed to leave a meaningful imprint on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.9

Compensated for a completely broken perimeter stroke by rapidly processing the floor and distributing the ball at a high level. Despite missing every jumper he took, his pesky on-ball pressure disrupted the opponent's initiation. This playmaking and defensive grit perfectly balanced out his scoring zeroes to result in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.6m
32
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+22.2

Overcame a brutal perimeter shooting night by relentlessly attacking the paint and generating trips to the foul line. His massive defensive metrics reflect elite weak-side rim protection and switchability that completely disrupted the opponent's half-court flow. This aggressive downhill mentality salvaged what could have been a highly negative efficiency game.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 14/16 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.7
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 36.6m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Strong point-of-attack defense and active hands in the passing lanes generated solid hustle metrics. However, his overall impact slipped into the red due to stagnant half-court orchestration and likely coughing up momentum-killing turnovers. He thrived in chaos but struggled to manage the game tempo when the pace slowed down.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

A frigid perimeter shooting night severely dragged down his overall rating, as he repeatedly bricked early-clock jumpers. He tried to compensate with aggressive on-ball pressure, yielding a strong defensive score. Ultimately, the wasted offensive possessions outweighed his gritty backcourt containment.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Elevated his baseline impact through disciplined perimeter containment and timely closeouts. Rather than forcing offensive action, he let the game come to him by taking high-value catch-and-shoot looks. This two-way stability kept his overall rating firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Onyeka Okongwu 26.3m
8
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Impact plummeted due to uncharacteristic struggles finishing around the basket and settling for low-percentage perimeter jumpers. Without his usual vertical gravity rolling to the rim, the offense stagnated during his shifts. His defensive rotations were a step slow, failing to offset the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +10.8
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
CJ McCollum 30.1m
23
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.3

Masterful shot selection and surgical pick-and-roll navigation drove a stellar overall rating. He picked his spots perfectly from beyond the arc while surprisingly holding his own at the point of attack defensively. This veteran composure stabilized the backcourt and consistently punished defensive drop coverages.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jock Landale 21.7m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities to drag opposing bigs out of the paint and open up driving lanes. His relentless motor on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that boosted his hustle metrics. Even with minimal rim protection, his offensive spacing provided a clear net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense -5.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Failed to provide his usual floor-spacing gravity, rushing his perimeter looks against tight closeouts. His inability to shake loose off screens rendered him largely invisible during his stint. Without his primary weapon falling, he lacked the defensive versatility to impact the game in other ways.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.8

Looked completely lost within the offensive flow, failing to register any meaningful production during his brief rotation. His defensive positioning was equally erratic, frequently getting caught in no-man's land on pick-and-roll coverages. A highly detrimental stint characterized by empty minutes and missed assignments.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0