Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead SAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAC 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 162 attempts

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

DeRozan 12/24 +1.1
Plowden Hard 8/12 +10.1
Carter Hard 5/12 +0.8
Monk Hard 5/12 +0.6
Achiuwa Open 7/12 -0.5
Raynaud 4/9 -1.1
McDermott Hard 2/5 +0.8
Jeffries Open 1/1 +0.6
Cardwell Open 1/1 +0.6

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 11/22 -1.2
Bane Hard 6/11 +4.7
Suggs Hard 3/8 +0.4
Carter Jr. 3/8 -2.3
da Silva Hard 5/7 +5.5
Cain Open 5/6 +3.7
Carter Hard 3/4 +3.3
Bitadze Open 2/3 0.0
Howard Hard 1/2 +1.0
Wagner Hard 0/2 -1.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAC
ORL
45/88 Field Goals 40/74
51.1% Field Goal % 54.1%
14/33 3-Pointers 13/27
42.4% 3-Point % 48.1%
13/16 Free Throws 28/32
81.2% Free Throw % 87.5%
61.6% True Shooting % 68.7%
41 Total Rebounds 44
9 Offensive 7
26 Defensive 29
30 Assists 22
2.73 Assist/TO Ratio 1.83
9 Turnovers 12
7 Steals 2
3 Blocks 2
24 Fouls 14
48 Points in Paint 44
16 Fast Break Pts 4
13 Points off TOs 16
12 Second Chance Pts 11
33 Bench Points 32
3 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
DeMar DeRozan
33 PTS · 6 REB · 11 AST · 38.5 MIN
+27.55
2
Paolo Banchero
30 PTS · 9 REB · 7 AST · 37.6 MIN
+26.71
3
Precious Achiuwa
14 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 33.8 MIN
+19.3
4
Desmond Bane
23 PTS · 0 REB · 6 AST · 34.8 MIN
+17.16
5
Daeqwon Plowden
23 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 35.0 MIN
+16.62
6
Maxime Raynaud
10 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 38.6 MIN
+14.97
7
Tristan da Silva
18 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 32.3 MIN
+12.29
8
Jamal Cain
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 21.8 MIN
+12.18
9
Malik Monk
13 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 32.4 MIN
+11.99
10
Wendell Carter Jr.
10 PTS · 11 REB · 0 AST · 35.4 MIN
+6.71
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 T. da Silva REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 117–121
Q4 0:04 MISS M. Monk 29' pullup 3PT 117–121
Q4 0:13 D. Bane Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 117–121
Q4 0:13 D. Bane Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 117–120
Q4 0:13 M. Monk personal FOUL (3 PF) (Bane 2 FT) 117–119
Q4 0:20 D. DeRozan 12' fadeaway Jump Shot (33 PTS) 117–119
Q4 0:27 T. da Silva kicked ball VIOLATION 115–119
Q4 0:27 J. Suggs 26' 3PT (8 PTS) (D. Bane 6 AST) 115–119
Q4 0:50 D. Plowden 26' 3PT (23 PTS) (D. DeRozan 11 AST) 115–116
Q4 0:59 D. DeRozan REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 112–116
Q4 1:01 MISS D. Bane 31' 3PT 112–116
Q4 1:13 P. Banchero REBOUND (Off:4 Def:5) 112–116
Q4 1:15 MISS W. Carter Jr. 34' 3PT 112–116
Q4 1:40 M. Monk running DUNK (13 PTS) (P. Achiuwa 2 AST) 112–116
Q4 1:44 P. Achiuwa STEAL (2 STL) 110–116

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 37.6m
30
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+25.5

A dominant offensive workload and aggressive mismatch hunting carried his massive net rating. He generated high-value scoring opportunities at will, masking relatively quiet defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +21.4
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +9.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Elite defensive positioning and rim protection were completely undone by poor offensive execution. Missed interior looks and a lack of scoring punch cratered what should have been a highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 34.8m
23
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.4

Efficient perimeter execution and secondary playmaking drove a solid positive rating. He picked his spots perfectly within the offense, avoiding the negative value of forced shots.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +19.5
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Suggs 34.0m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

A severe lack of offensive rhythm and missed shots tanked his overall impact. Despite maintaining his usual defensive intensity, his struggles to convert looks crippled the starting unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Highly efficient shot selection kept his head just above water. However, quiet stretches and a lack of defensive disruption prevented a higher overall score.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 93.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Cain 21.8m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Hyper-efficient shot selection and timely cuts fueled a highly productive bench performance. He capitalized on every touch while providing steady defensive value to round out a stellar stint.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 13.5m
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Efficient shooting in limited action wasn't enough to overcome a lack of overall floor presence. He failed to generate the defensive havoc that usually justifies his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 12.6m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite a slight uptick in scoring volume, a lack of rebounding and hustle stats limited his effectiveness. He struggled to anchor the paint defensively during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

A brief, low-impact stint was dragged down by defensive liabilities. He converted a perimeter look but offered too little resistance on the other end to break even.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Perfect shooting in a micro-stint provided a quick offensive jolt. He maximized his brief opportunity by converting his looks without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Blanking on the stat sheet offensively immediately tanked his value. Missing multiple looks in under five minutes created empty possessions that the defense couldn't salvage.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 38.6m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.8

Defensive positioning and high-level hustle metrics kept his value afloat despite a significant drop in scoring volume. He anchored the paint effectively, proving his worth extends far beyond offensive finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 38.5m
33
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+23.1

A massive surge in scoring volume and elite playmaking anchored his highly positive impact. He systematically dismantled the defense in isolation, ensuring his offensive production far outweighed a quiet night on the other end.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +25.0
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.5

Elite rim protection and a relentless motor fueled a stellar net rating. His ability to generate extra possessions through hustle plays completely overshadowed a low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +11.4
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Malik Monk 32.4m
13
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.6

Erratic shot selection from beyond the arc limited his net positive contributions. He provided a spark with his playmaking, but the sheer volume of missed threes kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Devin Carter 24.9m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.0

A high volume of missed perimeter shots severely dragged down his overall impact. While he provided solid defensive resistance, erratic shot selection ultimately sank his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -9.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
23
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.2

Blistering perimeter shooting drove a massive box score rating, though defensive lapses ate into his final margin. His elite floor-spacing stretched the defense, but he gave back significant value on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense -6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

A sharp drop in offensive involvement limited his ability to impact the game positively. He managed some hustle stats, but the lack of scoring gravity hurt the second unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Provided zero resistance or hustle metrics during his rotational minutes. The complete lack of secondary stats meant his modest shooting efficiency wasn't enough to stay in the positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.2

Defensive struggles in a short stint doomed his overall rating. He failed to replicate his recent high-efficiency scoring, leaving nothing to offset the defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -6.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.4

Barely saw the floor and failed to register any meaningful offensive stats. Defensive missteps in a micro-stint pushed his brief appearance into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0