Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead PHX lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHX 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 167 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Booker Hard 8/16 +2.5
Allen Hard 4/14 -4.1
Brooks 4/13 -3.6
Green 3/10 -5.2
Fleming 4/9 -2.2
O'Neale Hard 4/8 +3.9
Gillespie Hard 4/8 +2.3
Goodwin 2/8 -3.7
Ighodaro Open 2/2 +1.8

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Bane 6/16 -2.2
Banchero 6/14 -1.5
Suggs Hard 6/11 +3.3
da Silva 3/11 -6.4
Carter Jr. Open 4/7 +0.1
Howard 4/6 +2.4
Carter Hard 0/6 -6.4
Cain 4/5 +4.1
Wagner 2/2 +2.0
Bitadze Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
ORL
35/88 Field Goals 35/79
39.8% Field Goal % 44.3%
14/46 3-Pointers 10/29
30.4% 3-Point % 34.5%
27/35 Free Throws 35/41
77.1% Free Throw % 85.4%
53.7% True Shooting % 59.3%
54 Total Rebounds 57
11 Offensive 9
30 Defensive 37
24 Assists 24
1.20 Assist/TO Ratio 0.96
20 Turnovers 25
9 Steals 13
4 Blocks 1
32 Fouls 29
32 Points in Paint 42
18 Fast Break Pts 16
18 Points off TOs 26
13 Second Chance Pts 16
44 Bench Points 31
2 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Devin Booker
34 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 36.1 MIN
+21.23
2
Jamal Cain
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 19.7 MIN
+18.02
3
Jalen Suggs
20 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 37.7 MIN
+17.17
4
Royce O'Neale
14 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 30.7 MIN
+13.54
5
Jordan Goodwin
9 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 29.0 MIN
+10.51
6
Collin Gillespie
11 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 27.4 MIN
+9.02
7
Wendell Carter Jr.
15 PTS · 12 REB · 0 AST · 28.4 MIN
+9.0
8
Jett Howard
12 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 14.3 MIN
+8.46
9
Desmond Bane
21 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 37.3 MIN
+7.51
10
Paolo Banchero
19 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 37.1 MIN
+5.45
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 111–115
Q4 0:00 MISS D. Brooks 26' 3PT 111–115
Q4 0:01 T. da Silva Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 111–115
Q4 0:01 T. da Silva Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS) 111–114
Q4 0:01 G. Allen personal FOUL (6 PF) (da Silva 2 FT) 111–113
Q4 0:03 D. Booker 26' 3PT (34 PTS) (R. O'Neale 4 AST) 111–113
Q4 0:06 D. Bane 10' driving floating bank Jump Shot (21 PTS) 108–113
Q4 0:22 C. Gillespie personal FOUL (3 PF) 108–111
Q4 0:25 D. Bane REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 108–111
Q4 0:27 MISS D. Brooks 8' driving floating Shot 108–111
Q4 0:43 D. Brooks REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 108–111
Q4 0:46 MISS D. Bane 27' step back 3PT 108–111
Q4 1:08 D. Bane REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 108–111
Q4 1:11 MISS R. O'Neale 25' 3PT 108–111
Q4 1:27 W. Carter Jr. jumpball violation TURNOVER (6 TO) 108–111

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
Devin Booker actually won the night
34 points, 3 boards, 7 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+27.1), shot-making (+4.7), and creation (+4.3), pushing Net Impact to +19.5.
Scoring +27.1
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +4.7
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Creation +4.3
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Jamal Cain's value was hiding in plain sight
12 points, 3 boards, 1 assist undersells it. scoring (+11.1), defense (+6.5), and shot-making (+2.8) pushed his Net Impact to +13.9.
Scoring +11.1
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +6.5
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +2.8
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Paolo Banchero too hard
19 points, 9 boards, 8 assists gave him counting-stat cover, but turnovers (-9.5) and defense (-2.8) pulled Net Impact down to +2.0.
Turnovers -9.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -2.8
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +2.7
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Oso Ighodaro too hard
5 points, 10 boards, 5 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-5.4) and defense (-2.3), pulling Net Impact down to -3.3.
Turnovers -5.4
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -2.3
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Creation +0.6
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Jalen Suggs 37.7m
20
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.9

An absolute terror on the defensive end (+9.0), his point-of-attack pressure completely derailed the opponent's offensive flow. He paired this defensive masterclass with hyper-efficient scoring and relentless hustle (+5.5) to post a massive +8.3 total impact. Forcing turnovers and immediately converting them into transition opportunities defined his dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.8
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 6
S Desmond Bane 37.3m
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.9

High-level hustle (+6.0) and stout perimeter defense (+4.2) kept his overall impact positive despite a clunky shooting night. He compensated for the missed jumpers by constantly fighting through screens and generating extra possessions via loose ball recoveries. His relentless motor ensured he remained a net positive even when his primary weapon wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -13.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Paolo Banchero 37.1m
19
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.0

Despite solid hustle metrics and decent defensive engagement, his overall impact slipped into the red due to inefficient isolation possessions. Missed interior looks and stalled offensive sets ultimately outweighed his playmaking contributions. The sheer volume of empty possessions in the half-court defined a surprisingly negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
15
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.9

Superb defensive positioning (+6.2) and highly efficient shot selection drove a strong positive impact. He anchored the paint effectively, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass without needing high offensive usage. Continuing his streak of hyper-efficient shooting, he took exactly what the defense gave him to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +11.4
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -15.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

A cold streak from the perimeter and overall offensive inefficiency severely dragged down his total impact (-5.3). He struggled to create separation, leading to forced shots that consistently killed offensive momentum. The lack of defensive playmaking meant he had no way to offset his shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 22.1m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.1

A catastrophic perimeter shooting performance completely destroyed his offensive value and tanked his overall impact (-10.0). Although he brought his trademark defensive intensity (+3.1) and peskiness on the ball, it wasn't nearly enough to salvage the damage done by his bricked deep looks. The opposition essentially ignored him on offense, wrecking the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring -4.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 19.7m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.9

Flawless shot selection and suffocating defense (+8.3) resulted in an astronomical +17.2 impact rating in limited minutes. He capitalized on every single offensive touch while wreaking havoc in the passing lanes to ignite transition breaks. This was the definition of a sparkplug performance, maximizing efficiency across every possible metric.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Jett Howard 14.3m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Capitalized on a hot shooting hand to generate a highly positive offensive impact during his short stint. He found soft spots in the defense and knocked down his perimeter looks with confidence, punishing late closeouts. While his defensive metrics dipped slightly into the red, his scoring burst provided a much-needed lift for the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 14.0m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

A complete lack of offensive involvement allowed his overall impact to slip into negative territory (-2.7). While he provided marginal rim protection and adequate hustle, his inability to command attention in the pick-and-roll bogged down the second unit's spacing. He essentially operated as an offensive non-factor during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Made the absolute most of a brief four-minute cameo by converting his interior touches and holding his ground defensively (+1.9). He brought immediate physicality to the paint, executing his role perfectly without forcing the issue. His flawless efficiency ensured a solid positive impact despite the microscopic sample size.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 36.1m
34
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+19.5

Absolute dominance across the board resulted in a massive +18.7 total impact, driven by elite scoring efficiency and relentless activity. He paired his primary scoring duties with exceptional hustle (+9.0), constantly winning 50/50 balls and extending possessions. This was a masterclass in anchoring an offense while maintaining high-level engagement on the margins.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 16/19 (84.2%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +27.1
Creation +4.3
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

A noticeable scoring surge compared to his recent slump helped him post a slight positive overall impact. He fortified his solid offensive execution with disciplined point-of-attack defense (+3.6), keeping opposing guards out of the paint. Taking advantage of his minutes, he provided a stabilizing two-way presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Oso Ighodaro 24.5m
5
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.3

Extremely low-usage but highly efficient playstyle allowed him to maintain a positive overall impact. He generated significant value through high-motor hustle plays (+4.2) and steady defensive rotations rather than forcing his own offense. His disciplined shot selection kept the offense flowing smoothly without wasting possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +6.9
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 21.8m
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

A high volume of forced, inefficient attempts inside the arc severely damaged his overall net impact. While he managed to scrape together minor positive contributions in hustle and base box metrics, his erratic shot selection derailed offensive possessions. The persistent clanking on contested mid-range looks completely offset any marginal defensive value he provided.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Green 19.7m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Perimeter struggles completely tanked his offensive value, with a barrage of missed threes dragging his overall impact into the red. Despite the severe scoring drop-off, he stayed highly engaged off the ball, providing excellent defensive resistance (+3.9) and active hustle (+3.8) to stem the bleeding. His inability to find a shooting rhythm defined a highly frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.6

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc completely torpedoed his overall impact (-15.3). Compounding the offensive inefficiency were significant defensive lapses (-2.5) that allowed opponents to capitalize on his side of the floor. Continuing to fire away despite being ice cold turned a bad shooting slump into a major lineup liability.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -5.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.8

Lethal perimeter execution fueled a highly productive shift, heavily boosting his box impact. He paired the spacing he provided with excellent defensive rotations (+4.1), effectively shutting down driving lanes. His ability to hit timely spot-up looks while anchoring the wing defense defined his stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.7

Elite defensive tenacity (+7.8) and off-the-charts hustle (+7.4) completely masked a rough shooting night inside the arc. He generated massive value by blowing up screens, securing loose balls, and disrupting passing lanes. This performance was a textbook example of a player impacting winning entirely through grit and physical perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

An uptick in scoring volume was dragged into the negative by poor perimeter efficiency and defensive bleeding (-0.8). While he found success attacking the interior, his insistence on taking contested deep looks stalled offensive momentum. Ultimately, the defensive breakdowns and missed jumpers slightly outweighed his aggressive scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Made an immediate defensive mark (+2.9) despite seeing less than three minutes of floor time. His sheer size and rim-protection instincts completely altered opponent shot trajectories during his brief stint. He managed to generate a noticeably positive total impact purely through defensive deterrence without taking a single shot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0