Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 13/26 +0.4
Walker 7/13 +1.4
Nesmith Hard 6/11 +6.3
Nembhard 5/9 +1.4
McConnell 6/6 +7.3
Toppin Hard 3/5 +2.9
Huff Hard 2/4 +0.7
Sheppard 2/4 +0.4
Potter Hard 1/4 -1.2

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 13/27 +1.4
da Silva Hard 9/16 +4.5
Bane 7/15 -1.2
Carter Jr. Open 7/11 -0.2
Howard 4/5 +4.7
Richardson 4/5 +3.8
Cain 2/5 -0.6
Carter Hard 1/5 -2.5
Bitadze Open 1/3 -2.2
Penda 0/2 -2.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
ORL
45/82 Field Goals 48/94
54.9% Field Goal % 51.1%
16/35 3-Pointers 12/34
45.7% 3-Point % 35.3%
22/24 Free Throws 18/24
91.7% Free Throw % 75.0%
69.1% True Shooting % 60.3%
38 Total Rebounds 54
6 Offensive 9
29 Defensive 27
32 Assists 29
3.56 Assist/TO Ratio 2.64
7 Turnovers 11
5 Steals 5
4 Blocks 1
21 Fouls 18
50 Points in Paint 64
26 Fast Break Pts 14
20 Points off TOs 7
8 Second Chance Pts 23
32 Bench Points 30
12 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Pascal Siakam
37 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 33.5 MIN
+30.05
2
Tristan da Silva
21 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 34.0 MIN
+21.56
3
Paolo Banchero
39 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 36.7 MIN
+21.32
4
T.J. McConnell
13 PTS · 0 REB · 6 AST · 19.7 MIN
+20.6
5
Aaron Nesmith
19 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 35.4 MIN
+13.86
6
Jarace Walker
20 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 33.3 MIN
+13.83
7
Wendell Carter Jr.
17 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 28.1 MIN
+13.51
8
Desmond Bane
17 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 32.5 MIN
+13.38
9
Andrew Nembhard
13 PTS · 7 REB · 14 AST · 34.8 MIN
+12.1
10
Jase Richardson
9 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 18.5 MIN
+10.89
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 D. Bane REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 128–126
Q4 0:00 P. Siakam BLOCK (2 BLK) 128–126
Q4 0:00 MISS P. Banchero driving Layup - blocked 128–126
Q4 0:05 TEAM defensive REBOUND 128–126
Q4 0:08 MISS P. Siakam 13' turnaround Shot 128–126
Q4 0:28 P. Banchero Free Throw 2 of 2 (39 PTS) 128–126
Q4 0:28 P. Banchero Free Throw 1 of 2 (38 PTS) 128–125
Q4 0:28 A. Nembhard personal FOUL (5 PF) (Banchero 2 FT) 128–124
Q4 0:32 T. da Silva STEAL (2 STL) 128–124
Q4 0:32 J. Walker bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 128–124
Q4 0:34 J. Huff REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 128–124
Q4 0:37 MISS P. Siakam driving finger roll Layup 128–124
Q4 0:55 W. Carter Jr. personal FOUL (4 PF) 128–124
Q4 0:55 P. Siakam REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 128–124
Q4 0:57 MISS D. Bane running Layup 128–124

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 Paolo Banchero 36.7m
39
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.6

Operated as an unstoppable offensive engine by bullying smaller defenders in the mid-post. The massive scoring spike was paired with exceptional rim-protection metrics, making this a true two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 41.6%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +27.9
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
21
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.8

Punished late closeouts all night to significantly outpace his usual scoring output. His crisp off-ball movement and sturdy weak-side defense provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the starting group.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Desmond Bane 32.5m
17
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.3

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc stalled out multiple offensive possessions. Despite flashing some secondary playmaking, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage and steady screening. Continuing his streak of highly efficient finishing, he capitalized perfectly on the gravity generated by his perimeter teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jevon Carter 23.8m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

A complete offensive non-factor whose inability to initiate sets severely crippled the second unit. The profound negative impact stemmed directly from stalled possessions and bricked bail-out jumpers late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 22.8m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Failed to replicate his recent high-efficiency play, looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. His passive approach on the wing resulted in empty minutes that bled value whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 19.9m
6
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.9

Struggled to secure the paint against physical bigs, leading to costly second-chance opportunities for the opposition. While he facilitated reasonably well from the high post, his overall impact cratered due to soft interior defense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Seized his rotational opportunity by aggressively attacking the basket and finishing with precision. This hyper-efficient scoring burst injected crucial life into a stagnant bench unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 15.9m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Provided a brilliant spark of perimeter shot-making, nearly doubling his usual scoring output in limited action. However, his value was entirely erased by a porous defensive stint where he was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 7.8m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.0

Made his mark as a defensive disruptor during a brief cameo, blowing up multiple actions on the perimeter. The offensive side of the floor remained a struggle, keeping his overall impact just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Aaron Nesmith 35.4m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite perimeter shot-making kept the offense humming, but his value was quietly eroded by getting caught on screens defensively. The scoring punch was effectively neutralized by giving up corresponding high-value looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 34.8m
13
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
-0.3

Heavy playmaking volume masked a disastrous defensive stint at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently broke him down off the dribble, turning his offensive orchestration into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense -2.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 33.5m
37
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+29.1

Completely hijacked the game flow by overwhelming his primary matchups in isolation. Elite defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays compounded his massive scoring leap to drive a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 43.2%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +27.3
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +7.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 33.3m
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Despite extending his highly efficient shooting streak, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive rotational lapses. The offensive surge was ultimately hollowed out by giving up too many easy angles on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 27.7m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A sharp drop in offensive involvement severely capped his overall ceiling tonight. While he remained engaged as a rim deterrent, his inability to command defensive attention dragged down the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 20.3m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Regressed sharply from his recent hyper-efficient stretch by settling for contested looks outside the paint. His inability to anchor the interior or finish through contact rendered his minutes largely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.5

Completely destabilized the opposing second unit with relentless ball pressure and flawless shot selection. His ability to penetrate the paint at will created a massive swing in momentum during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 18.4m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Faded into the background offensively while repeatedly losing his man on backdoor cuts. The lack of assertiveness on the wing created dead possessions that dragged down the entire lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Obi Toppin 16.9m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

Struggled to find his usual rhythm in transition, forcing him into a half-court role that limited his effectiveness. A lack of aggressive rim-runs allowed the defense to stay home, muting his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1