Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead PHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHI 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Edgecombe 9/19 -0.3
Grimes 9/15 +4.1
Bona Open 7/12 -1.2
Watford Open 7/11 +1.5
Payne Hard 4/10 +1.4
Edwards Hard 3/10 -3.2
Walker 3/5 +0.3
Drummond 2/5 -1.2
Beauchamp 2/4 -0.6
Terry Hard 0/1 -1.1

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Bailey Hard 7/20 -3.3
Williams 5/15 -4.7
Filipowski Hard 3/14 -8.0
Chandler 5/13 -1.5
Harkless 6/13 -2.2
Konchar 4/8 -0.7
Mbeng 5/7 +2.6
Tshiebwe Open 4/6 +1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHI
UTA
46/92 Field Goals 39/96
50.0% Field Goal % 40.6%
6/27 3-Pointers 9/40
22.2% 3-Point % 22.5%
28/32 Free Throws 29/31
87.5% Free Throw % 93.5%
59.4% True Shooting % 52.9%
64 Total Rebounds 45
16 Offensive 11
40 Defensive 28
27 Assists 29
1.69 Assist/TO Ratio 3.62
16 Turnovers 8
4 Steals 8
8 Blocks 8
26 Fouls 25
74 Points in Paint 52
27 Fast Break Pts 30
12 Points off TOs 17
26 Second Chance Pts 6
54 Bench Points 36
10 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Elijah Harkless
15 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 35.6 MIN
+18.35
2
VJ Edgecombe
22 PTS · 13 REB · 4 AST · 39.0 MIN
+16.87
3
Kennedy Chandler
19 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 37.2 MIN
+16.85
4
Adem Bona
16 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 26.6 MIN
+16.32
5
Bez Mbeng
13 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 44.8 MIN
+16.23
6
Trendon Watford
20 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 23.5 MIN
+15.84
7
Ace Bailey
25 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 33.4 MIN
+15.57
8
Cameron Payne
16 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 27.4 MIN
+12.79
9
Oscar Tshiebwe
8 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 10.6 MIN
+12.3
10
Quentin Grimes
25 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 35.6 MIN
+11.98
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:18 V. Edgecombe REBOUND (Off:2 Def:11) 126–116
Q4 0:20 MISS B. Mbeng 25' 3PT 126–116
Q4 0:27 A. Bailey REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 126–116
Q4 0:30 MISS C. Williams 3PT 126–116
Q4 0:40 V. Edgecombe 14' pullup Jump Shot (22 PTS) (Q. Grimes 4 AST) 126–116
Q4 1:02 K. Chandler 7' driving finger roll Layup (19 PTS) 124–116
Q4 1:08 T. Watford Free Throw 2 of 2 (20 PTS) 124–114
Q4 1:08 T. Watford Free Throw 1 of 2 (19 PTS) 123–114
Q4 1:08 A. Bailey shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Watford 2 FT) 122–114
Q4 1:27 T. Watford REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 122–114
Q4 1:29 MISS C. Williams 17' pullup Shot 122–114
Q4 1:36 Q. Grimes 7' driving floating bank Jump Shot (25 PTS) 122–114
Q4 1:48 K. Chandler Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 120–114
Q4 1:48 K. Chandler Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 120–113
Q4 1:48 Q. Grimes shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Chandler 2 FT) 120–112

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
VJ Edgecombe actually won the night
22 points, 13 boards, 4 assists was the line. The lift came from hustle (+15.5), scoring (+14.4), and shot-making (+4.3), pushing Net Impact to +20.0.
Hustle +15.5
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Scoring +14.4
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +4.3
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Cody Williams too hard
15 points, 0 boards, 3 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-7.1) and defense (-3.7), pulling Net Impact down to -13.6.
Turnovers -7.1
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -3.7
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +1.2
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Adem Bona's value was hiding in plain sight
16 points, 5 boards, 0 assists undersells it. scoring (+11.0), hustle (+6.3), and shot-making (+1.7) pushed his Net Impact to +8.9.
Scoring +11.0
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +6.3
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Shot-making +1.7
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Ace Bailey too hard
25 points, 7 boards, 4 assists gave him counting-stat cover, but turnovers (-4.7) and defense (-3.8) pulled Net Impact down to +2.7.
Turnovers -4.7
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -3.8
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +2.0
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
S Bez Mbeng 44.8m
13
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.7

Despite highly efficient shot selection that spiked his scoring average, defensive vulnerabilities (-0.5) over a grueling marathon workload dragged his net rating down. The sheer volume of minutes magnified minor defensive lapses and offset his otherwise tidy offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.8m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Elijah Harkless 35.6m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.8

Off-the-charts hustle (+7.1) and suffocating defense (+10.9) formed the backbone of a stellar two-way performance. Even with a shaky three-point stroke, his relentless motor on loose balls and passing lanes generated massive value.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +8.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cody Williams 34.9m
15
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.6

Impact absolutely plummeted due to a disastrous shooting night where he clanked ten total shots and completely blanked from deep. Compounding the offensive inefficiency were costly defensive breakdowns (-1.9) that bled points during his extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 33.4m
25
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.7

Elite defensive disruption (+10.9) completely salvaged a wildly inefficient chucking performance from beyond the arc. While missing thirteen total shots normally tanks a player's value, his relentless perimeter defense and ability to force stops drove a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -3.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 18.3m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

An abysmal perimeter shooting display snapped his streak of highly efficient games and dragged his impact into the negative. Solid defensive positioning (+2.8) only partially mitigated the damage of his eleven wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.7

Active defensive hands (+4.1) and solid hustle metrics kept his overall impact in the green despite missing eight field goals. Timely perimeter shot-making helped offset the inefficiency of his interior drives.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 25.3m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Gritty hustle plays (+4.0) and sound defensive rotations provided a steadying presence that resulted in a positive net rating. He avoided forcing bad looks, taking what the defense gave him to ensure efficient use of his touches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Maximized a brief rotation spot by converting high-percentage interior looks to maintain his streak of elite shooting efficiency. Generating clean offensive possessions without wasting touches fueled a massive positive impact rate for his limited floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.0m
22
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.0

Heavy offensive usage kept his baseline metrics high, but bricking ten field goal attempts neutralized his overall effectiveness. His defensive activity (+4.0) barely kept his net impact near neutral during a highly taxing workload.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +15.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quentin Grimes 35.6m
25
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Despite an efficient scoring surge that spiked his recent averages, hidden costs like defensive lapses (-1.0) and poor transition containment dragged his net rating deep into the red. The high offensive volume masked underlying bleed on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +21.0
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Adem Bona 26.6m
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Dominated the interior with highly efficient finishing that fueled a massive scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. An imposing defensive presence (+6.6) combined with relentless rim-running to yield a stellar two-way impact score.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Justin Edwards 25.3m
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Tremendous hustle (+5.0) and solid defensive rotations couldn't salvage an erratic shooting performance that dragged down his overall value. Clanking seven shots, primarily from the perimeter, negated the extra possessions he generated through sheer effort.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that snapped his streak of highly efficient shooting nights. His negative overall impact stems entirely from a lack of offensive production during his limited minutes, though he did manage to provide a slight defensive lift (+1.9).

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.5

Perimeter shot-making provided a scoring punch, but missing six field goals inside the arc limited his offensive ceiling. A lack of disruptive defensive plays or loose-ball recoveries kept his overall net impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.7

Phenomenal shot selection and aggressive hustle (+3.8) defined a highly efficient scoring outburst that nearly doubled his recent average. By converting high-value looks and competing on the margins, he generated one of the team's best overall impact scores.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +9.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Anchored the paint with a dominant defensive rating (+8.3) that completely overshadowed his quiet offensive output. Elite rim deterrence and disciplined positioning drove a strong positive impact despite taking only five shots.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +9.2
Defense +1.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Maximized a short stint off the bench by taking high-percentage looks and contributing active hustle plays (+2.4). This efficient shot selection drove a strong positive impact rate relative to his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Defensive struggles (-0.9) and minimal hustle contributions severely undercut an otherwise adequate shooting night. Failing to generate extra possessions or stops during his brief rotation turn resulted in a notably negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.6

A completely empty offensive shift combined with poor defensive execution (-1.2) cratered his rating in under eight minutes. Offering zero hustle stats or scoring punch made him a significant liability during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1