Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAS lead PHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHI 2P — 3P —
SAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Embiid 8/19 -2.5
Maxey 6/16 -3.7
George 5/15 -1.3
Edgecombe 6/15 -2.4
Grimes 2/7 -3.0
Oubre Jr. 2/7 -4.0
Barlow 2/4 -0.5
Drummond Open 2/4 -0.8
Edwards 1/2 -0.5

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Johnson 4/14 -7.1
Castle 6/13 -0.3
Fox 6/12 -1.0
Harper 7/11 +4.0
Wembanyama 7/11 +2.3
Vassell 4/9 -0.7
Champagnie 3/6 -0.2
Kornet Open 4/6 -0.4
Barnes 1/3 -1.7
Waters III Hard 1/2 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHI
SAS
34/89 Field Goals 44/89
38.2% Field Goal % 49.4%
10/32 3-Pointers 11/32
31.2% 3-Point % 34.4%
24/29 Free Throws 16/22
82.8% Free Throw % 72.7%
50.1% True Shooting % 58.3%
54 Total Rebounds 57
17 Offensive 9
31 Defensive 38
17 Assists 31
1.42 Assist/TO Ratio 2.82
11 Turnovers 9
7 Steals 8
5 Blocks 5
21 Fouls 23
38 Points in Paint 58
11 Fast Break Pts 22
12 Points off TOs 20
18 Second Chance Pts 7
18 Bench Points 50
4 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Joel Embiid
34 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 39.2 MIN
+24.49
2
Stephon Castle
19 PTS · 10 REB · 13 AST · 30.6 MIN
+20.62
3
Dylan Harper
17 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 27.9 MIN
+16.01
4
Dominick Barlow
6 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 16.0 MIN
+15.41
5
Keldon Johnson
13 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 25.4 MIN
+12.66
6
VJ Edgecombe
14 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 40.8 MIN
+11.32
7
Victor Wembanyama
17 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 15.7 MIN
+10.98
8
Devin Vassell
9 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 30.1 MIN
+10.52
9
Julian Champagnie
7 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 26.7 MIN
+9.26
10
Paul George
16 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 38.1 MIN
+8.92
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:19 SAS shot clock Team TURNOVER 102–115
Q4 0:41 L. Kornet REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 102–115
Q4 0:43 MISS T. Maxey 28' pullup 3PT 102–115
Q4 0:52 S. Castle running finger roll Layup (19 PTS) 102–115
Q4 0:55 S. Castle STEAL (2 STL) 102–113
Q4 0:55 J. Embiid lost ball TURNOVER (4 TO) 102–113
Q4 0:58 D. Barlow REBOUND (Off:5 Def:3) 102–113
Q4 1:01 MISS V. Edgecombe running reverse Layup 102–113
Q4 1:06 V. Edgecombe REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 102–113
Q4 1:09 MISS D. Fox 25' step back 3PT 102–113
Q4 1:27 D. Fox STEAL (2 STL) 102–113
Q4 1:27 T. Maxey bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 102–113
Q4 1:37 TEAM defensive REBOUND 102–113
Q4 1:40 MISS K. Johnson 24' 3PT 102–113
Q4 1:59 T. Maxey driving Layup (15 PTS) (P. George 4 AST) 102–113

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

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 30.6m
19
pts
10
reb
13
ast
Impact
+12.4

Elite point-of-attack defense and superb decision-making as a primary initiator drove a stellar net rating. He consistently collapsed the defense on drives, creating high-quality looks for teammates while suffocating his primary matchup on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +5.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 30.1m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

Active hands in passing lanes and strong defensive rotations kept his overall impact slightly above water. However, a passive offensive approach and an inability to connect from deep prevented him from being a true difference-maker.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

A stark drop in offensive aggression compared to his recent hot streak limited his effectiveness and dragged his net score down. He passed up several open looks on the perimeter, bogging down the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +9.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 26.5m
13
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.4

Struggled to find the bottom of the net from beyond the arc, which allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. While his defensive intensity and hustle metrics were commendable, the offensive spacing issues ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Completely terrorized the opposition in limited minutes, utilizing his massive catch radius to finish efficiently around the rim. His towering presence alone altered multiple shot attempts, generating a massive defensive impact before exiting early.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 35.9%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
Dylan Harper 27.9m
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Flawless execution from the perimeter punished defensive drop coverages and significantly boosted his offensive rating. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient shooting, his ability to capitalize on every open window made him a lethal secondary weapon.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.1

Overcame a dreadful shooting performance by transforming into an absolute menace on the defensive end. Relentless effort on 50/50 balls and physical perimeter containment entirely masked his offensive inefficiencies.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kornet 22.5m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Provided a crucial offensive spark as a roll man, consistently finding soft spots in the interior defense to double his usual scoring output. His reliable finishing around the basket stabilized the second unit, even if his rim protection was slightly subpar.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -6.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A complete lack of offensive assertiveness and sluggish lateral movement on defense led to a severely negative net rating. He vanished into the background of the half-court offense, failing to leverage his veteran experience to impact the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.0

Defensive miscommunications and slow rotations on the perimeter heavily penalized his overall score during a brief stint. Although he managed to knock down a timely triple, he was repeatedly targeted and exploited by quicker guards on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Injected immediate energy during a quick rotational appearance by sinking a perimeter jumper and playing stout on-ball defense. His disciplined closeouts ensured the opposition couldn't generate easy momentum while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 40.8m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Heavy minutes amplified the damage of his erratic shot selection, dragging his net impact into the negative. Although he provided solid resistance on the defensive end, forcing up contested perimeter looks consistently disrupted the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tyrese Maxey 39.6m
15
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.3

A sharp decline in scoring aggression and poor point-of-attack defense resulted in a disastrous net rating. Opposing guards consistently blew past him on the perimeter, compounding an offensive night where he struggled to find his rhythm attacking the basket.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Joel Embiid 39.1m
34
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.7

Absolute dominance in the paint anchored a massive positive impact, drawing constant double-teams that warped the opposing defensive shell. Even with inefficient shooting from the floor, his ability to generate trips to the foul line and protect the rim kept the team afloat during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 16/19 (84.2%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +24.6
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +13.3
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 4
S Paul George 38.1m
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Despite excellent defensive metrics and high-level hustle plays, his overall value dipped into the red due to a brutal night finishing inside the arc. He settled for contested mid-range jumpers instead of attacking the rim, neutralizing his otherwise elite perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 29.4m
5
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A severe regression in offensive volume tanked his overall impact, as he failed to connect on any perimeter looks. While active on the glass and defensively engaged, his inability to space the floor stalled out half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Failed to provide the necessary floor spacing, clanking several wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities that stalled momentum. Defensive lapses against quicker wings further eroded his value, making him a liability on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.1

Exceptional defensive positioning and relentless hustle plays fueled an incredibly high impact score relative to his minutes. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions, proving to be a disruptive force that completely shifted the game's energy.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +9.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Capitalized on a brief rotational stint by dominating the interior matchups and converting high-percentage looks. His sheer size advantage in the paint provided a quick, stabilizing jolt to the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Made the most of a brief cameo by locking in defensively and executing his assignments without mistakes. His quick closeouts on the perimeter prevented easy looks during a critical transitional lineup phase.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0