Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

George 10/24 -0.4
Bailey Hard 5/16 -3.6
Sensabaugh Hard 3/12 -5.9
Collier 5/10 -0.8
Hinson Hard 4/6 +4.4
Williams Hard 3/6 +0.4
Harkless 1/5 -2.6
Bamba Open 2/3 +0.4
Filipowski Open 2/3 +0.3
Konchar Hard 0/2 -2.2

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey Hard 8/22 -2.5
Walker 7/12 +3.2
Grimes Open 7/12 -0.9
Bona Open 6/8 +1.6
Barlow 3/8 -2.7
Martin Hard 3/7 +1.0
Watford 3/6 -0.3
Edwards 2/5 -0.7
Drummond 1/3 -1.7
Payne Hard 0/3 -3.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
PHI
36/88 Field Goals 40/88
40.9% Field Goal % 45.5%
12/39 3-Pointers 9/35
30.8% 3-Point % 25.7%
18/19 Free Throws 17/21
94.7% Free Throw % 81.0%
52.9% True Shooting % 54.5%
51 Total Rebounds 55
13 Offensive 12
29 Defensive 31
22 Assists 24
1.47 Assist/TO Ratio 1.60
14 Turnovers 14
7 Steals 6
6 Blocks 7
24 Fouls 17
38 Points in Paint 60
10 Fast Break Pts 21
18 Points off TOs 22
21 Second Chance Pts 20
42 Bench Points 39
8 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jabari Walker
22 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 28.1 MIN
+20.15
2
Tyrese Maxey
25 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 37.9 MIN
+19.95
3
Isaiah Collier
18 PTS · 0 REB · 5 AST · 25.9 MIN
+17.03
4
Keyonte George
30 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 30.2 MIN
+15.83
5
Adem Bona
12 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 28.7 MIN
+15.07
6
Quentin Grimes
16 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 31.1 MIN
+11.81
7
Cody Williams
9 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 28.1 MIN
+10.79
8
Kyle Filipowski
6 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 22.4 MIN
+9.33
9
Justin Edwards
5 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 15.2 MIN
+9.22
10
Blake Hinson
11 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 19.0 MIN
+8.8
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 J. Walker Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 102–106
Q4 0:02 J. Walker Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 102–105
Q4 0:02 I. Collier take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Grimes 2 FT) 102–104
Q4 0:03 J. Walker REBOUND (Off:3 Def:7) 102–104
Q4 0:07 MISS K. Filipowski 27' 3PT 102–104
Q4 0:16 Q. Grimes Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 102–104
Q4 0:16 Q. Grimes Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 102–103
Q4 0:16 K. Filipowski shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Grimes 2 FT) 102–102
Q4 0:33 TEAM defensive REBOUND 102–102
Q4 0:36 MISS K. George 27' 3PT 102–102
Q4 0:46 Q. Grimes driving finger roll Layup (14 PTS) 102–102
Q4 1:04 I. Collier running finger roll Layup (18 PTS) (K. Filipowski 3 AST) 102–100
Q4 1:07 A. Bailey STEAL (1 STL) 100–100
Q4 1:07 T. Maxey lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 100–100
Q4 1:25 J. Walker REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 100–100

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 37.9m
25
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.7

Relentless offensive aggression forced the defense into constant rotation, even with his jumper misfiring. Exceptional hustle metrics (+5.7) and highly disruptive perimeter defense (+7.8) proved his motor never stopped running.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Quentin Grimes 31.1m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Strong interior finishing offset a brutal perimeter shooting slump. His persistent point-of-attack defense (+3.8) ensured he remained a net positive despite the spacing issues he created on offense.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Adem Bona 28.7m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Dominated the paint through sheer physicality and relentless rim-running. His ability to finish through contact while simultaneously erasing shots on the other end (+6.9) created a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 25.3m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Elite defensive rotations (+8.0) were entirely wasted by clunky offensive execution. He consistently stalled half-court sets by forcing tough interior looks against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Trendon Watford 22.4m
7
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Solid connective passing and sturdy positional defense (+3.6) kept his overall rating slightly in the green. A complete lack of perimeter spacing, however, allowed his defender to heavily pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
22
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.0

Catching fire from the perimeter completely stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. This massive, unexpected scoring surge broke the game open and generated a staggering box score impact (+18.6).

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +11.7
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Forced contested jumpers led directly to empty offensive possessions. A negative box score impact heavily outweighed his decent defensive effort on the wing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Smart off-ball cutting and active perimeter defense (+4.5) created a highly efficient two-way stint. He perfectly executed his role as a connective piece without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverage and forced shots around the basket dragged down the second unit. His inability to finish cleanly inside allowed the opponent to easily leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.0

Offensive rhythm vanished completely during his brief stint running the point. High hustle metrics (+3.4) couldn't salvage the empty scoring possessions resulting from his perimeter bricks.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 9.2m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Failed to generate any offensive advantage while operating as the primary ball-handler. A total lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and stagnant perimeter movement compounded the highly ineffective performance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -50.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 30.5m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Shot selection completely derailed his overall impact. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock resulted in a brutal string of empty possessions that his solid defensive metrics (+3.9) couldn't salvage.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Keyonte George 30.2m
30
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.4

Massive offensive usage masked a highly inefficient perimeter shooting display. His relentless downhill aggression forced the defense into constant rotation, though the sheer volume of missed jumpers capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 28.1m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

A sharp drop in offensive volume was mitigated by excellent off-ball activity. His defensive rotations (+3.8) and consistent hustle plays kept the second unit afloat despite a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 22.4m
6
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Elite rim deterrence (+4.0) anchored the defense during his minutes on the floor. Even though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent games, he maintained high efficiency by strictly taking high-percentage looks in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +13.0
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Elijah Harkless 19.8m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Exceptional hustle metrics (+5.1) were entirely undone by a disastrous offensive stint. He stalled half-court sets with forced, contested jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.9

Relentless rim pressure and disruptive point-of-attack defense (+7.1) fueled a stellar two-way rating. By completely abandoning the three-point line, he optimized his shot diet and collapsed the defense on nearly every possession.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
Mo Bamba 20.9m
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Dominant paint protection (+7.2) defined his highly effective stint. He completely shut down the restricted area, allowing his low-usage offensive role to remain a net positive for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +9.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.6

Disastrous shot selection completely tanked his offensive rhythm. Chucking contested perimeter looks early in the clock resulted in a massive negative swing that derailed the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Blake Hinson 19.0m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Pure spacing gravity generated wide-open driving lanes for his teammates. While his perimeter marksmanship stretched the floor beautifully, a near-total lack of defensive or hustle contributions limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 18.9m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

Total offensive invisibility created a massive void on the perimeter. Failing to register a single productive drive or shot attempt allowed defenders to completely sag off him and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Hyper-efficient finishing around the basket maximized his extremely brief stint on the floor. However, sluggish pick-and-roll coverage (-0.5) kept him on a very short leash.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1