Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHX lead ORL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
ORL 2P — 3P —
PHX 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 215 attempts

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 11/28 -4.7
Bane Hard 12/18 +12.3
Carter Hard 6/14 +1.1
Black Hard 4/12 -4.1
da Silva Hard 2/10 -4.8
Wagner Hard 2/4 +1.2
Carter Jr. Hard 2/4 -0.2
Howard Hard 0/4 -3.7
Bitadze Open 2/2 +1.4
Isaac Open 1/1 +0.6

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Green Hard 6/26 -10.6
Allen Hard 8/22 +0.5
Gillespie Hard 6/17 -0.3
Goodwin Hard 6/10 +5.6
Williams 4/10 -2.0
O'Neale Hard 2/10 -3.5
Ighodaro 5/7 +2.4
Brooks Hard 2/7 -1.1
Dunn Hard 1/4 -1.5
Livers 0/4 -4.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
PHX
42/98 Field Goals 40/117
42.9% Field Goal % 34.2%
10/39 3-Pointers 16/55
25.6% 3-Point % 29.1%
16/19 Free Throws 17/24
84.2% Free Throw % 70.8%
51.7% True Shooting % 44.3%
66 Total Rebounds 78
10 Offensive 22
43 Defensive 43
24 Assists 20
1.50 Assist/TO Ratio 2.22
16 Turnovers 8
6 Steals 11
15 Blocks 4
21 Fouls 20
60 Points in Paint 46
18 Fast Break Pts 12
17 Points off TOs 22
13 Second Chance Pts 23
28 Bench Points 58
12 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Desmond Bane
34 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 39.6 MIN
+29.7
2
Jordan Goodwin
17 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 24.9 MIN
+20.57
3
Grayson Allen
27 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 33.2 MIN
+18.49
4
Oso Ighodaro
11 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 29.6 MIN
+15.84
5
Paolo Banchero
26 PTS · 14 REB · 8 AST · 46.6 MIN
+14.52
6
Collin Gillespie
19 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 44.9 MIN
+14.02
7
Jevon Carter
15 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 33.0 MIN
+8.66
8
Royce O'Neale
6 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 45.7 MIN
+7.54
9
Moritz Wagner
7 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 12.2 MIN
+6.41
10
Jalen Green
16 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 36.8 MIN
+5.7
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q6 0:00 J. Green 24' 3PT (16 PTS) (R. O'Neale 4 AST) 110–113
Q6 0:02 J. Carter 25' 3PT (15 PTS) (T. da Silva 3 AST) 110–110
Q6 0:05 PHX shot clock Team TURNOVER 107–110
Q6 0:28 M. Williams REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 107–110
Q6 0:29 MISS J. Isaac Free Throw 2 of 2 107–110
Q6 0:29 TEAM offensive REBOUND 107–110
Q6 0:29 MISS J. Isaac Free Throw 1 of 2 107–110
Q6 0:29 C. Gillespie shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Isaac 2 FT) 107–110
Q6 0:33 J. Green driving reverse Layup (13 PTS) 107–110
Q6 0:53 J. Isaac tip Layup (2 PTS) 107–108
Q6 0:54 J. Isaac REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 105–108
Q6 0:55 MISS P. Banchero driving Layup 105–108
Q6 1:02 T. da Silva REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 105–108
Q6 1:05 MISS C. Gillespie 27' 3PT 105–108
Q6 1:23 G. Allen REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 105–108

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

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Royce O'Neale 45.7m
6
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

Heavy minutes were marred by a disastrous perimeter shooting performance that severely handicapped the offense. Missing a high volume of threes allowed defenders to pack the paint and completely ignore him on the weak side. Exceptional hustle and defensive rebounding metrics couldn't offset the damage caused by his inability to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.7m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.5

A massive leap in scoring volume was undercut by poor efficiency, keeping his net rating slightly negative. He dominated the ball in the halfcourt but settled for far too many contested pull-up threes. Despite generating solid offensive production, the sheer number of missed shots prevented the unit from finding a true rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.9m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Green 36.8m
16
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

A catastrophic shooting night absolutely cratered his overall impact score. He hijacked possessions with forced isolations, clanking a massive volume of field goals and constantly bailing out the defense with early-clock jumpers. The sheer number of empty trips completely overshadowed his surprisingly solid defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/26 (23.1%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 27.9%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 28.4m
9
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing around the rim dragged his impact into negative territory. He missed several high-percentage bunnies in the pick-and-roll, failing to punish smaller defenders on switches. While his rim protection remained adequate, the squandered interior opportunities stalled crucial offensive runs.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 7.2m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A brief but erratic shooting stint limited his offensive ceiling, though he managed to stay slightly positive. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, disrupting the flow of the halfcourt offense. However, his physical point-of-attack defense against primary ball-handlers provided just enough value to edge his rating into the green.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.1

Relentless perimeter aggression drove a positive impact despite a streaky shooting percentage. He utilized constant off-ball movement to warp the defense, pulling rim protectors away from the paint. Even with a high volume of missed field goals, his sheer scoring gravity and floor spacing opened up vital driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 29.6m
11
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.6

Elite efficiency in the pick-and-roll fueled a highly impressive overall rating. He punished defensive miscommunications with hard rolls to the rim, finishing through contact and generating second-chance opportunities. His disciplined drop coverage and active hands in the passing lanes completed a superb two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +15.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.8

Lethal shot-making off the bench catalyzed a massive positive swing in the game's momentum. He capitalized on every defensive lapse, knocking down rhythm threes and attacking closeouts with decisive drives. This hyper-efficient scoring burst single-handedly anchored the second unit's offensive production.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 22.4m
3
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Offensive invisibility plagued his minutes, as he failed to apply any pressure on the rim. He passed up open looks and allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team primary scorers. Strong weak-side defensive rotations kept his defensive metrics afloat, but his lack of scoring gravity was a major detriment.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

Another scoreless outing severely damaged his unit's net rating. He bricked multiple wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the opposition to completely ignore him in the halfcourt. The inability to knock down basic rotational passes made him an offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Garbage time minutes yielded a slightly negative score due to a lack of overall involvement. He merely initiated the offense without looking to attack, letting the clock bleed out. The sample size was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions about his play.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -1.2
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 46.6m
26
pts
14
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.1

High-volume inefficiency dragged his net rating into the red, as a barrage of missed field goals derailed the unit's rhythm. He absorbed massive usage in isolation sets but settled for far too many contested midrange jumpers. Strong work on the defensive glass partially salvaged his overall grade, though the poor shot selection left significant points on the board.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.6m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +9.1
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 6
S Anthony Black 44.9m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Perimeter shooting woes completely neutralized his offensive value, as he blanked on all his attempts from beyond the arc. Opponents sagged off him aggressively, clogging the paint and stalling halfcourt execution. While his point-of-attack defense remained disruptive, the inability to space the floor proved disastrous for the unit's net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.9m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 39.6m
34
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+28.8

Elite shot-making from the perimeter fueled a massive positive impact score. He punished drop coverage by hunting transition threes and maintaining pristine spacing throughout the contest. This scoring explosion forced defensive adjustments that opened up driving lanes for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +29.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +8.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

A severe drop-off in scoring efficiency tanked his overall impact despite solid defensive metrics. Clanking multiple perimeter looks killed offensive momentum and prevented the floor spacing his team relies on. His defensive rotations remained crisp, but the empty possessions on the other end were simply too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +9.5
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
7
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Passive offensive involvement resulted in a negative overall impact, snapping a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He deferred too often in the halfcourt, failing to pressure the rim while struggling to anchor the interior defense against downhill drivers. This lack of aggression allowed the opposition to ignore him and overload the strong side.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +7.2
Defense -5.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jevon Carter 33.0m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

A massive spike in offensive volume wasn't enough to push his impact into the green due to erratic perimeter shooting. He forced several contested looks late in the shot clock, bricking a barrage of threes that bailed out the defense. His relentless ball pressure generated quality defensive metrics, but the trigger-happy shot selection limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
Jett Howard 18.8m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.6

A complete offensive disappearing act torpedoed his rating during a rough rotation stint. He looked hesitant on catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling ball movement and failing to register on the scoreboard. Though he showed flashes of decent weak-side help defense, the total lack of scoring gravity made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Highly efficient interior finishing during a brief rotation stint drove a strong positive score. He capitalized on pick-and-roll mismatches, setting bruising screens that created immediate downhill advantages. This short burst of physical offensive execution provided a crucial spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Perfect execution on limited touches allowed him to post a solid positive rating in under ten minutes of action. He anchored the paint effectively during the non-starter minutes, altering shots at the rim to deter baseline drives. His ability to convert dump-off passes without forcing the issue stabilized the backup center spot.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -48.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Limited minutes yielded a modest but positive impact driven primarily by disciplined positioning. He executed his assignments flawlessly in a short defensive stint, denying post entries and contesting without fouling. The offensive role was minimal, but he kept the ball moving and avoided negative plays.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Noah Penda 5.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

High-energy hustle plays compensated for a completely barren offensive showing. He kept possessions alive by crashing the glass and diving for loose balls during a chaotic stretch of play. This relentless motor generated enough extra possessions to keep his overall impact in the black despite offering zero scoring threat.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -62.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0