Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Saraf Open 6/13 -4.4
Minott Hard 4/12 -2.0
Etienne Hard 3/11 -2.3
Traore 2/10 -4.8
Wolf 4/9 -0.8
Williams 3/6 +1.0
Clowney 2/6 -1.6
Mann 2/6 -1.7
Johnson 0/6 -6.5
Liddell 4/5 +4.1

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Grimes Hard 10/22 -0.1
Edwards Open 9/13 +2.0
Edgecombe 6/13 -1.6
Payne Hard 2/10 -2.5
Watford Open 5/9 -1.1
Barlow Open 3/5 -0.2
Bona Open 2/5 -2.5
Terry Hard 1/4 -1.8
Beauchamp Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
PHI
32/89 Field Goals 38/82
36.0% Field Goal % 46.3%
15/43 3-Pointers 3/25
34.9% 3-Point % 12.0%
18/21 Free Throws 25/31
85.7% Free Throw % 80.6%
49.4% True Shooting % 54.4%
52 Total Rebounds 59
12 Offensive 8
30 Defensive 39
20 Assists 22
1.18 Assist/TO Ratio 1.57
17 Turnovers 14
10 Steals 12
5 Blocks 10
22 Fouls 16
34 Points in Paint 54
14 Fast Break Pts 13
6 Points off TOs 20
13 Second Chance Pts 10
57 Bench Points 22
1 Largest Lead 28
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Justin Edwards
19 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 30.9 MIN
+22.79
2
Quentin Grimes
28 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 34.1 MIN
+18.69
3
Danny Wolf
15 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 26.4 MIN
+13.5
4
Chaney Johnson
6 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 24.2 MIN
+12.02
5
VJ Edgecombe
16 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 34.9 MIN
+11.89
6
E.J. Liddell
10 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 11.2 MIN
+10.84
7
Adem Bona
9 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 32.8 MIN
+10.64
8
Ben Saraf
12 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 31.4 MIN
+9.74
9
Dominick Barlow
10 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 33.4 MIN
+9.03
10
Ziaire Williams
9 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 20.6 MIN
+9.0
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:04 Q. Grimes REBOUND (Off:0 Def:8) 97–104
Q4 0:07 MISS N. Traore 28' pullup 3PT 97–104
Q4 0:10 V. Edgecombe Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 97–104
Q4 0:10 V. Edgecombe Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 97–103
Q4 0:10 C. Johnson take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Edgecombe 2 FT) 97–102
Q4 0:11 B. Saraf driving Layup (12 PTS) (N. Traore 3 AST) 97–102
Q4 0:18 Q. Grimes Free Throw 2 of 2 (28 PTS) 95–102
Q4 0:18 Q. Grimes Free Throw 1 of 2 (27 PTS) 95–101
Q4 0:18 B. Saraf take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Grimes 2 FT) 95–100
Q4 0:20 Q. Grimes technical Free Throw 1 of 1 (26 PTS) 95–100
Q4 0:20 M. Porter Jr. technical FOUL (1 Tech) 95–99
Q4 0:20 TEAM offensive REBOUND 95–99
Q4 0:21 MISS D. Barlow Free Throw 2 of 2 95–99
Q4 0:21 D. Barlow Free Throw 1 of 2 (10 PTS) 95–99
Q4 0:21 N. Traore take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Barlow 2 FT) 95–98

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 VJ Edgecombe 34.9m
16
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.6

Exceptional point-of-attack defense set the tone for his minutes, as he consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and disrupted timing. However, his overall value was muted by empty possessions from beyond the arc, preventing a good performance from becoming a great one.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Quentin Grimes 34.1m
28
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.3

Carrying a massive offensive burden, his relentless downhill attacks forced the defense into constant rotation and generated high-value looks. While his perimeter touch abandoned him, the sheer volume of his rim pressure and secondary playmaking kept his net impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 33.4m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Commendable work on the interior and disciplined drop coverage produced strong defensive metrics, yet his overall score dipped just below neutral. The culprit was likely a string of poorly timed defensive fouls that gifted the opposition easy trips to the charity stripe.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Adem Bona 32.8m
9
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Anchoring the paint with terrifying verticality, his rim-deterrence completely altered the opponent's shot profile. Even with a low-usage offensive role, his ability to clean up the glass and erase mistakes defensively made him an invaluable asset.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +8.8
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Justin Edwards 30.9m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.0

Relentless slashing to the basket yielded an incredibly efficient scoring night, completely bypassing his struggles from the perimeter. He paired this offensive aggression with suffocating on-ball defense, resulting in a dominant two-way performance that dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Chucking up ill-advised, early-clock triples completely derailed the offensive rhythm and sunk his net score. He managed to claw back some value by fighting through screens defensively, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Dalen Terry 19.8m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A severe lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the paint. Without creating any meaningful advantages off the bounce, his minutes resulted in a stagnant offense and a negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Operating effectively out of the mid-post, he found soft spots in the zone to keep the chains moving. A couple of blown assignments in transition defense slightly suppressed his rating, leaving him with a marginally positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Thriving entirely as an energy piece, his relentless weak-side help and deflections blew up multiple opponent sets. He didn't need to look at the basket to be highly effective, proving that elite defensive positioning can carry a player's impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Danny Wolf 26.4m
15
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.8

Aggressive positioning on the glass fueled a massive spike in his overall impact, creating crucial second-chance opportunities. Even with a few errant attempts from deep, his sheer physical dominance inside dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +11.7
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ziaire Williams 20.6m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

A sharp decline in offensive volume limited his overall footprint, though perfect execution from beyond the arc kept his efficiency high. His steady perimeter rotations yielded a positive defensive metric, ensuring he didn't bleed value during a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 18.6m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Poor shot selection from the perimeter severely dragged down his offensive rating, as he forced contested looks late in the clock. He partially salvaged his outing with strong rim protection, anchored by disciplined verticality that generated a solid defensive score.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -41.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Terance Mann 18.2m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Struggling to find a rhythm, his negative impact stemmed from empty offensive possessions and an inability to pressure the defense. He was largely invisible in the half-court sets, failing to generate the necessary rim pressure to collapse the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -57.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nolan Traore 17.0m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-19.7

A disastrous shot profile cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly settled for heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock. Compounding the offensive struggles, poor lateral movement on the perimeter allowed straight-line drives that decimated his defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 36.6%
Net Rtg -57.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Ben Saraf 31.4m
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.8

Careless ball security in traffic undermined what was otherwise a highly active two-way performance. While his aggressive on-ball defense and transition pushes were commendable, costly live-ball giveaways ultimately tipped his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Spraying contested looks from beyond the arc severely hampered his offensive efficiency, as he failed to attempt a single shot inside the three-point line. Fortunately, dogged point-of-attack defense and timely weak-side rotations prevented his cold shooting from sinking the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Missing every single attempt from the floor would normally ruin a player's night, but his extraordinary defensive anchoring completely flipped the script. By dominating the glass and contesting everything at the rim, he engineered a massive positive impact without needing to score.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +9.8
Defense +4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

Elite off-ball chasing and high-motor closeouts generated stellar defensive metrics, but his offensive passivity proved fatal to his overall rating. Passing up open looks stalled the half-court offense, making his minutes a severe net negative despite the defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -10.6
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
Josh Minott 21.9m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Despite clanking a high volume of perimeter attempts, relentless energy on loose balls kept his overall impact above water. His willingness to crash the passing lanes disrupted the opponent's flow, offsetting the damage done by his inefficient shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
E.J. Liddell 11.2m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

A sudden and explosive scoring burst completely reshaped the game's momentum during his brief stint on the floor. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, his surgical shot execution maximized every touch and drove a stellar positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +78.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0