Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 168 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Riley 8/13 +3.2
Hardy Hard 7/13 +1.5
Johnson Hard 3/12 -5.0
Coulibaly 3/12 -6.6
Cooper Open 5/11 -2.4
Champagnie Open 6/9 +0.7
Carrington Hard 4/8 +4.4
Black 3/8 -2.5
Reese Open 4/6 +0.4

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero Open 15/21 +4.7
Bane 7/10 +5.9
Suggs Open 5/9 -0.5
Carter Hard 3/9 -0.7
Howard 4/6 +1.8
da Silva Hard 3/6 +1.5
Wagner Open 2/6 -3.2
Bitadze Open 2/3 +0.4
Richardson Hard 0/3 -3.0
Penda Open 1/2 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
ORL
43/92 Field Goals 42/76
46.7% Field Goal % 55.3%
7/32 3-Pointers 10/25
21.9% 3-Point % 40.0%
16/25 Free Throws 32/37
64.0% Free Throw % 86.5%
52.9% True Shooting % 68.3%
57 Total Rebounds 42
13 Offensive 3
29 Defensive 35
23 Assists 33
1.64 Assist/TO Ratio 3.67
12 Turnovers 8
4 Steals 3
6 Blocks 6
24 Fouls 22
60 Points in Paint 62
9 Fast Break Pts 19
8 Points off TOs 23
12 Second Chance Pts 2
55 Bench Points 37
2 Largest Lead 25
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Paolo Banchero
37 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 31.9 MIN
+30.52
2
Desmond Bane
25 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 33.1 MIN
+24.53
3
Justin Champagnie
13 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 22.6 MIN
+20.72
4
Will Riley
19 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 33.4 MIN
+16.61
5
Jalen Suggs
10 PTS · 3 REB · 9 AST · 26.5 MIN
+12.33
6
Jett Howard
12 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 13.5 MIN
+10.89
7
Leaky Black
8 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 30.6 MIN
+10.51
8
Sharife Cooper
16 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 19.6 MIN
+10.03
9
Bub Carrington
11 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 31.6 MIN
+7.29
10
Moritz Wagner
10 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 15.6 MIN
+7.14
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 ORL shot clock Team TURNOVER 109–126
Q4 0:28 W. Riley driving Layup (19 PTS) 109–126
Q4 0:34 J. Cain personal FOUL (1 PF) 107–126
Q4 0:43 N. Penda Free Throw 2 of 2 (5 PTS) 107–126
Q4 0:43 N. Penda Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 107–125
Q4 0:43 J. Hardy personal FOUL (2 PF) (Penda 2 FT) 107–124
Q4 1:02 W. Riley 25' 3PT running pullup (17 PTS) (S. Cooper 3 AST) 107–124
Q4 1:05 S. Cooper REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 104–124
Q4 1:10 MISS J. Cain 17' step back Shot 104–124
Q4 1:27 S. Cooper running Layup (16 PTS) (J. Reese 3 AST) 104–124
Q4 1:29 W. Riley STEAL (2 STL) 102–124
Q4 1:29 J. Richardson bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 102–124
Q4 1:44 L. Black tip Layup (8 PTS) 102–124
Q4 1:44 L. Black REBOUND (Off:4 Def:5) 100–124
Q4 1:46 MISS S. Cooper 26' step back 3PT 100–124

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 33.1m
25
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.7

Lethal perimeter efficiency and relentless off-ball movement completely warped the opposing defense. He punished late closeouts with surgical precision, elevating his offensive output while maintaining high-level hustle metrics. This combination of premium shot-making and constant kinetic energy made him a massive net positive during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +22.8
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Paolo Banchero 31.9m
37
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+27.4

An absolute masterclass in shot selection and bully-ball finishing drove a dominant positive rating. He systematically dismantled his primary matchups in the mid-range, converting at an elite clip to shatter his recent scoring averages. This offensive explosion completely dictated the game's tempo and masked a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 15/21 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +32.0
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Strong weak-side defensive rotations and active hustle metrics were overshadowed by a passive offensive approach. He passed up several open looks, drastically reducing his scoring output compared to recent weeks and stalling the team's rhythm. The negative overall rating suggests his shifts coincided with broader lineup struggles despite his solid individual defensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +44.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 26.5m
10
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.9

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and elite hustle defined this highly disruptive performance. He sacrificed his own scoring volume to act as a primary facilitator, consistently collapsing the defense to generate high-value looks for teammates. His ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions at the point of the screen firmly kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Goga Bitadze 21.5m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Excellent rim protection and physical screen-setting anchored his minutes, even if the final impact score washed out to neutral. He capitalized on dump-off passes to significantly boost his scoring output compared to recent quiet nights. Ultimately, his positive interior presence was likely offset by defensive transition breakdowns while he was trailing the play.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jevon Carter 30.1m
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.1

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than pressuring the rim dragged down his offensive efficiency. While he saw a slight bump in his raw scoring output, his inability to finish inside the arc led to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The resulting negative impact score highlights the cost of his streaky shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 19.0m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Fantastic defensive rotations and switchability were nearly enough to offset his limited offensive utility. He finally broke out of a horrific shooting slump by taking higher-percentage looks near the basket. However, his reluctance to space the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, resulting in a marginally negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Drawing contact in the paint proved to be his saving grace during an otherwise inefficient shooting night. He aggressively targeted mismatches to get to the free-throw line, sparking a massive scoring increase compared to his recent quiet stretch. This ability to manufacture points through sheer physicality kept his overall impact rating positive.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 13.5m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Instant offense off the bench provided a crucial spark and drove a healthy positive rating. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive cuts and confident perimeter shooting, more than doubling his usual scoring output in limited action. This microwave scoring burst completely shifted the momentum during his brief rotational window.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.8

A complete failure to generate offense in limited minutes resulted in a heavily negative rating. He looked hesitant attacking closeouts and bricked his few perimeter attempts, totally derailing the second unit's spacing. This stark drop-off from his recent efficient play forced the coaching staff to look elsewhere for bench production.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

A brief cameo appearance didn't provide enough runway to establish any real rhythm. He offered a few flashes of weak-side rim deterrence, but the sample size was too small to swing the game's momentum. The fractional negative score is merely statistical noise from a quick rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 4.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

An unusually short leash abruptly snapped his streak of highly efficient offensive performances. He looked out of sync during his brief four minutes of action, blowing a defensive assignment and failing to register any positive hustle stats. The negative rating reflects a quick hook from the coaching staff before he could find his footing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -63.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Will Riley 33.4m
19
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.6

Consistent two-way execution kept his overall rating in the green despite a heavy workload. He generated high-quality looks to maintain his recent scoring tear, while his active hands on the perimeter disrupted opponent sets. His ability to blend efficient shot selection with reliable point-of-attack defense defined his floor time.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julian Reese 32.6m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Despite converting efficiently around the rim, a stark drop in offensive aggression limited his overall effectiveness. He vanished for long stretches compared to his recent dominant paint performances, failing to command double-teams. The negative final impact stems from defensive rotations where he was caught out of position against quicker bigs.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bub Carrington 31.6m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.8

High-level hustle metrics and sharpshooting from deep couldn't rescue a negative overall rating. He likely surrendered too many driving lanes on defense or committed costly live-ball turnovers that fueled transition runs. The stark contrast between his positive individual metrics and negative total points to systemic breakdowns during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.2m
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.6

A brutal perimeter shooting slump completely cratered his overall impact rating. Missing all of his attempts from beyond the arc stalled out offensive possessions and prevented him from finding any rhythm. This massive drop-off from his recent scoring averages forced the half-court offense to play 4-on-5 for long stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -51.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 23.9m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.7

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock severely damaged the team's offensive flow. He failed to register any presence on the glass, making him a one-dimensional liability when the perimeter shots weren't falling. This pattern of empty possessions and poor shot selection ultimately drove his deeply negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Leaky Black 30.6m
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Solid positional defense and active rebounding weren't quite enough to overcome clunky offensive possessions. He struggled to convert looks around the perimeter, which allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. The slight negative impact reflects a shift where his defensive stability was undermined by offensive spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +8.5
Defense -1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.2

Relentless energy on both ends of the floor translated into a massive positive impact rating. He dominated the dirty work with elite hustle metrics and suffocating defensive rotations that completely derailed opponent actions. Continuing a streak of highly efficient finishing, his ability to capitalize on second-chance opportunities anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +8.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 21.6m
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Tunnel vision on offense and a string of forced perimeter shots dragged down his overall effectiveness. While he found success penetrating the lane, bricking numerous attempts from beyond the arc killed valuable momentum during key stretches. A complete lack of defensive playmaking meant he offered no secondary value when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

A sudden scoring surge was completely neutralized by a lack of defensive resistance and zero measurable hustle plays. He found success attacking the paint offensively, but gave those points right back by dying on screens at the other end. This perfectly balanced zero-impact rating highlights a classic one-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1