Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
WAS lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
WAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 173 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Quickley Hard 10/15 +7.2
Barrett 8/15 -0.2
Ingram 9/14 +5.8
Barnes 7/13 +0.5
Poeltl Open 7/7 +4.7
Shead 3/7 -0.3
Walter Hard 2/5 +1.3
Mamukelashvili 3/5 +0.2
Battle Hard 2/4 +2.3

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Champagnie 6/11 -0.7
Gill 4/11 -4.0
Riley Hard 6/10 +3.9
Coulibaly 6/10 +2.2
Carrington Hard 4/9 +1.6
Hardy Hard 4/9 +1.1
George Hard 5/7 +6.8
Vukcevic Hard 4/6 +4.3
Johnson Hard 3/6 +2.7
Watkins Hard 4/5 +4.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
WAS
51/85 Field Goals 47/88
60.0% Field Goal % 53.4%
9/22 3-Pointers 16/34
40.9% 3-Point % 47.1%
23/27 Free Throws 15/21
85.2% Free Throw % 71.4%
69.2% True Shooting % 64.3%
41 Total Rebounds 45
8 Offensive 12
27 Defensive 23
31 Assists 23
3.10 Assist/TO Ratio 1.64
9 Turnovers 13
7 Steals 3
3 Blocks 8
22 Fouls 20
68 Points in Paint 56
18 Fast Break Pts 5
20 Points off TOs 9
10 Second Chance Pts 14
26 Bench Points 64
17 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Immanuel Quickley
27 PTS · 2 REB · 11 AST · 37.2 MIN
+26.03
2
Jakob Poeltl
18 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 26.2 MIN
+25.74
3
Brandon Ingram
24 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 33.7 MIN
+20.88
4
Scottie Barnes
18 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 29.4 MIN
+16.58
5
Justin Champagnie
12 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 21.6 MIN
+15.46
6
RJ Barrett
21 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 32.7 MIN
+14.65
7
Kyshawn George
14 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 15.2 MIN
+11.93
8
Bilal Coulibaly
14 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 22.9 MIN
+11.85
9
Tristan Vukcevic
13 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 18.6 MIN
+11.32
10
Bub Carrington
12 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 20.8 MIN
+10.15
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:20 S. Cooper Free Throw 2 of 2 (4 PTS) 134–125
Q4 0:20 S. Cooper Free Throw 1 of 2 (3 PTS) 134–124
Q4 0:20 J. Walter shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Cooper 2 FT) 134–123
Q4 0:32 TEAM defensive REBOUND 134–123
Q4 0:35 MISS I. Quickley 31' pullup 3PT 134–123
Q4 0:54 W. Riley 7' turnaround Hook (19 PTS) 134–123
Q4 1:10 I. Quickley driving Layup (27 PTS) 134–121
Q4 1:22 J. Hardy personal FOUL (1 PF) 132–121
Q4 1:42 J. Watkins driving DUNK (10 PTS) 132–121
Q4 1:53 TOR shot clock Team TURNOVER 132–119
Q4 1:53 TEAM offensive REBOUND 132–119
Q4 1:53 MISS J. Shead 29' pullup 3PT 132–119
Q4 2:20 W. Riley 30' 3PT step back (17 PTS) 132–119
Q4 2:36 J. Poeltl offensive foul TURNOVER (1 TO) 132–116
Q4 2:36 J. Poeltl offensive FOUL (6 PF) 132–116

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

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bilal Coulibaly 22.9m
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

Leveraged his elite wingspan to disrupt passing lanes and generate deflections, anchoring a solid defensive stint. Offensively, he capitalized on smart baseline cuts, though a few rushed decisions in traffic kept his overall impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 20.8m
12
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

Showed flashes of brilliance navigating screens, but careless live-ball turnovers in the second half ignited opponent fast breaks. The defensive effort was commendable, yet the offensive sloppiness ultimately washed out his positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 19.3m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

Bogged down the offense with isolation-heavy possessions that routinely stalled ball movement. Getting targeted on switches defensively further compounded the damage, leading to a severely negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Floor-spacing ability pulled opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up crucial driving lanes for the guards. However, poor pick-and-roll positioning on the defensive end bled points and capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 15.2m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a massive spark off the bench by blanketing his primary matchup and forcing multiple late-clock heaves. Decisive catch-and-shoot execution punished defensive over-helps, driving a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Will Riley 34.5m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Poured immense energy into crashing the offensive glass (+4.0 hustle), but his shot selection featured too many contested mid-range pull-ups. The scoring volume masked a porous transition defense where he consistently failed to match up in time.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Anthony Gill 28.3m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

Over-aggressiveness on closeouts led to costly shooting fouls that bailed out stagnant opponent possessions. While he tried to establish deep post position, a lack of vertical spacing and poor finishing around the basket severely limited his impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Punished smaller defenders in the dunker spot while maintaining excellent discipline on defensive closeouts. His ability to switch onto guards without conceding driving angles (+3.4 Def) was the quiet engine behind this highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Changed the complexion of the game with relentless on-ball pressure and timely weak-side blocks. His willingness to sprint the floor and finish through contact in transition provided a steady, positive boost.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 19.8m
11
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Tunnel vision on drives resulted in blocked shots and missed reads to open corner shooters. Getting blown by on straight-line drives defensively meant he gave back far more than he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Struggled to finish through contact at the rim, leading to empty possessions that stalled the offense. He competed hard at the point of attack defensively, but the inability to convert high-leverage drives dragged his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
27
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
+19.5

Completely dictated the tempo with elite pick-and-roll orchestration that forced constant defensive rotations. His ability to break down the primary defender and hit timely momentum-shifting jumpers unlocked the offense and drove a stellar +9.3 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +23.2
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Ingram 33.7m
24
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.6

Exploited wing mismatches early in the shot clock, generating high-value looks that spiked his offensive rating. His length disrupted passing lanes during a crucial third-quarter stretch, anchoring a solid +4.2 defensive impact that kept his overall score firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 32.7m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.0

A high-volume slashing approach yielded mixed overall results, as aggressive drives were occasionally offset by forced attempts in traffic. However, his commitment to fighting through screens and crashing the glass (+3.6 hustle) salvaged a slightly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 29.4m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Relentless rim pressure and transition playmaking collapsed the defense, consistently creating open perimeter looks for teammates. His switchability on the other end neutralized multiple pick-and-roll actions, driving a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 26.2m
18
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.9

Utterly dominated the interior through textbook drop coverage and elite rim protection, resulting in a massive +7.4 defensive score. His relentless offensive rebounding and screen-setting (+6.5 hustle) created countless second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +10.8
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Struggled to find a rhythm within the half-court offense, often settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. Defensive lapses in transition and a failure to contain dribble penetration compounded the heavy negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 22.1m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

Impact cratered due to stagnant offensive decision-making and an inability to create separation against physical point-of-attack defenders. While he offered marginal resistance on the perimeter, the lack of offensive flow during his minutes was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Found some success spacing the floor, but defensive liabilities off the ball allowed back-door cuts that hurt the team's momentum. A lack of physical resistance on the glass further dragged down his net score despite decent shot selection.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite a quiet night looking for his own shot, he found ways to contribute through high-energy closeouts and weak-side rim rotations. A willingness to do the dirty work in the paint (+3.4 hustle) salvaged a positive impact during a low-usage stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that offered no time to establish a rhythm. Failed to register any meaningful defensive rotations or hustle plays before being subbed back out.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -175.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0