Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHI lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
PHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 189 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Avdija Hard 7/19 -3.3
Henderson 4/14 -5.5
Grant Hard 7/13 +6.0
Camara Hard 3/10 -3.8
Clingan Open 4/10 -4.7
Holiday Hard 2/9 -4.2
Krejčí Hard 3/6 +3.3
Williams III Open 3/5 -0.8
Thybulle Hard 2/4 +1.1
Cissoko 1/2 +0.8

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Grimes 11/22 -0.9
Edgecombe Hard 8/18 -0.1
Edwards 9/14 +6.8
Payne Hard 5/12 +0.4
Drummond 3/9 -3.5
Watford 3/7 -0.9
Barlow Open 4/6 +1.4
Bona Open 1/5 -5.0
Beauchamp 0/2 -2.3
Martin Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
PHI
36/92 Field Goals 44/97
39.1% Field Goal % 45.4%
17/53 3-Pointers 7/25
32.1% 3-Point % 28.0%
14/21 Free Throws 14/15
66.7% Free Throw % 93.3%
50.9% True Shooting % 52.6%
58 Total Rebounds 62
15 Offensive 14
34 Defensive 37
26 Assists 17
1.37 Assist/TO Ratio 1.21
18 Turnovers 12
6 Steals 13
9 Blocks 4
14 Fouls 19
36 Points in Paint 60
15 Fast Break Pts 20
21 Points off TOs 24
27 Second Chance Pts 12
35 Bench Points 26
9 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Quentin Grimes
31 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 39.5 MIN
+28.36
2
Donovan Clingan
11 PTS · 15 REB · 5 AST · 27.7 MIN
+19.8
3
Justin Edwards
21 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 25.0 MIN
+17.7
4
Robert Williams III
6 PTS · 12 REB · 0 AST · 20.3 MIN
+16.52
5
VJ Edgecombe
18 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 35.0 MIN
+15.61
6
Dominick Barlow
11 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 21.0 MIN
+14.69
7
Andre Drummond
6 PTS · 17 REB · 4 AST · 34.7 MIN
+9.41
8
Jerami Grant
20 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 31.5 MIN
+9.35
9
Deni Avdija
25 PTS · 6 REB · 9 AST · 38.2 MIN
+8.54
10
Cameron Payne
11 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 20.1 MIN
+6.78
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 D. Barlow REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 103–109
Q4 0:11 MISS D. Avdija fadeaway 3PT 103–109
Q4 0:21 Q. Grimes Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 103–109
Q4 0:21 Q. Grimes Free Throw 1 of 2 (30 PTS) 103–108
Q4 0:21 J. Grant take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Grimes 2 FT) 103–107
Q4 0:23 R. Williams III putback Layup (6 PTS) 103–107
Q4 0:23 R. Williams III REBOUND (Off:6 Def:6) 101–107
Q4 0:26 MISS D. Avdija 25' running 3PT 101–107
Q4 0:32 S. Henderson STEAL (2 STL) 101–107
Q4 0:32 J. Edwards lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 101–107
Q4 0:39 T. Watford STEAL (1 STL) 101–107
Q4 0:39 D. Avdija lost ball TURNOVER (7 TO) 101–107
Q4 0:43 V. Edgecombe 19' fadeaway Jump Shot (18 PTS) 101–107
Q4 1:07 D. Avdija Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 101–105
Q4 1:07 D. Avdija Free Throw 1 of 2 (24 PTS) 100–105

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 Quentin Grimes 39.5m
31
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.9

An absolute masterclass in two-way wing play, driven by suffocating perimeter defense and relentless downhill attacking. He completely locked up his primary assignment while simultaneously carving up the mid-range on the other end. His elite screen navigation and physical drives dictated the terms of the game for nearly forty minutes.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Scoring +22.5
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +7.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 35.0m
18
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.5

Ferocious rebounding and transition opportunism kept his rating positive despite a clunky shooting night. He forced the issue too often in half-court isolation, leading to several contested bricks. However, his sheer athleticism and second-effort plays salvaged possessions that would have otherwise died.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +9.4
Defense -2.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Justin Edwards 25.0m
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.5

Decisive slashing and confident stroke mechanics powered a breakout offensive performance. He relentlessly attacked rotating defenses, exploiting gaps before the help could arrive. Coupling that downhill aggression with disciplined on-ball defense cemented a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 20.9m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

High-motor rim runs and switchable defensive versatility made him an absolute menace in the frontcourt. He consistently beat his man down the floor to establish deep position or alter shots in transition. This relentless energy on both ends created a massive positive differential.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Adem Bona 13.2m
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Rushed attempts in the paint and poor touch around the basket neutralized his solid defensive positioning. He struggled to anchor his base against heavier bigs, leading to empty offensive trips. While he contested well vertically, the lack of offensive polish kept his impact submerged.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
17
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Utter dominance on the defensive glass masked a highly inefficient performance around the rim. He repeatedly missed point-blank bunnies, squandering the extra possessions he worked so hard to generate. While he walled off the paint defensively, the offensive clumsiness resulted in a perfectly flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +18.7
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.9

Passive offensive positioning allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. He hesitated when catching the ball on the perimeter, completely killing any built-up advantage. This lack of offensive gravity outweighed a handful of solid hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -5.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Errant decision-making in the pick-and-roll bogged down the second unit's offensive rhythm. He settled for tricky, off-balance floaters instead of keeping the ball moving to open shooters. A few timely defensive rotations weren't enough to compensate for the stalled offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his stint, as he failed to bend the defense or capitalize on open space. He was essentially ignored by opposing schemes, allowing them to play five-on-four on that end. Energetic closeouts provided a minor defensive boost, but the offensive zero was too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kyle Lowry 5.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Uncharacteristic sluggishness at the point of attack allowed guards to turn the corner on him immediately. He failed to organize the offense during his brief appearance, leading to stagnant possessions. The veteran simply couldn't find the pace of the game before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

A brief, disjointed cameo featured rushed decisions and zero offensive rhythm. He forced a bad look early in the shot clock rather than letting the play develop. The short leash prevented him from settling into the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 38.2m
25
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.2

Forcing the issue from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall efficiency, as he repeatedly settled for contested deep looks early in the shot clock. His secondary playmaking and excellent weak-side defensive rotations kept him somewhat afloat. Ultimately, the sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions capped his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -15.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 7
S Jerami Grant 31.5m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Sizzling isolation shot-making inflated his offensive metrics, but a lack of rotational awareness on the other end dragged down his total rating. He operated almost exclusively as a perimeter spot-up threat, neglecting the dirty work inside. Giving up straight-line drives defensively negated his hot hand from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 31.1m
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.0

A brutal perimeter shooting slump tanked his overall impact despite solid defensive engagement. Settling for heavily contested looks from deep completely disrupted the offensive flow. The resulting empty possessions overshadowed his reliable point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 27.7m
11
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.6

Dominant rim protection and relentless glass-cleaning fueled a massive positive swing whenever he anchored the paint. Even with a few clunky attempts from the perimeter, his sheer physical presence deterred countless drives. Controlling the defensive interior completely dictated the tempo during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +19.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jrue Holiday 24.3m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

An uncharacteristically flat offensive outing saw him bricking open rhythm jumpers, severely stalling the half-court execution. While he maintained his usual defensive discipline, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his overall rating into the red. His inability to punish drop coverage allowed the opposition to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Inability to finish through contact at the rim torpedoed his offensive value, negating a highly active defensive performance. He consistently broke down the primary defender but failed to convert in traffic. Those blown layups sparked transition opportunities going the other way, suppressing his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.0

Elite vertical spacing and tremendous weak-side shot deterrence drove a highly impactful stint. He completely sealed off the restricted area, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Operating strictly within his role offensively allowed his defensive dominance to shine through.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +13.3
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 14.7m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Floating through his minutes without leaving a tangible imprint on either end resulted in a negative swing. A lack of aggression in attacking closeouts made him easy to ignore in half-court sets. He simply didn't generate enough defensive friction or offensive gravity to justify his court time.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Disruptive activity in the passing lanes generated crucial transition opportunities and kept his impact firmly in the green. He played perfectly within himself, taking only what the defense conceded while wreaking havoc as an off-ball roamer. This chaotic defensive energy shifted the momentum during his brief minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Catch-and-shoot reliability provided a nice offensive spark, but defensive frailties at the point of attack gave those gains right back. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, exposing his lateral quickness. The resulting defensive breakdowns slightly outweighed his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1