Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 7/22 -11.5
Wagner Hard 7/18 -1.7
Suggs Hard 8/17 +6.8
Black 5/9 +0.9
Bane Hard 3/8 -0.9
da Silva Hard 3/6 +0.1
Carter Jr. 0/5 -5.1
Carter Hard 1/3 -0.1
Bitadze Open 2/2 +1.2
Cain Hard 0/1 -0.9

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Harper Jr. Hard 10/20 +5.4
Scheierman Hard 8/20 +4.3
Garza 10/18 +3.2
Tonje Hard 4/12 -2.2
Walsh Hard 2/9 -4.7
Shulga Hard 1/4 -0.1
Banton 0/3 -3.2
Williams Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
BOS
36/91 Field Goals 36/87
39.6% Field Goal % 41.4%
12/43 3-Pointers 19/50
27.9% 3-Point % 38.0%
24/30 Free Throws 22/22
80.0% Free Throw % 100.0%
51.8% True Shooting % 58.4%
62 Total Rebounds 50
14 Offensive 8
36 Defensive 38
22 Assists 24
1.16 Assist/TO Ratio 1.41
19 Turnovers 17
6 Steals 10
5 Blocks 6
19 Fouls 23
42 Points in Paint 32
40 Fast Break Pts 18
11 Points off TOs 23
11 Second Chance Pts 11
31 Bench Points 17
11 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Ron Harper Jr.
27 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 36.6 MIN
+24.64
2
Luka Garza
27 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 38.0 MIN
+23.81
3
Baylor Scheierman
30 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 38.8 MIN
+22.87
4
Jalen Suggs
23 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 38.0 MIN
+13.17
5
Franz Wagner
20 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 26.2 MIN
+12.44
6
Desmond Bane
8 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 17.6 MIN
+9.04
7
John Tonje
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 29.6 MIN
+7.28
8
Anthony Black
13 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 19.0 MIN
+7.26
9
Paolo Banchero
23 PTS · 10 REB · 11 AST · 37.9 MIN
+7.2
10
Tristan da Silva
8 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 23.6 MIN
+6.67
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 B. Scheierman REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 108–113
Q4 0:01 MISS D. Bane 3PT 108–113
Q4 0:02 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–113
Q4 0:05 MISS P. Banchero 30' pullup 3PT 108–113
Q4 0:07 J. Walsh Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 108–113
Q4 0:07 J. Walsh Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS) 108–112
Q4 0:07 P. Banchero take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Walsh 2 FT) 108–111
Q4 0:09 J. Suggs take personal FOUL (1 PF) 108–111
Q4 0:17 L. Garza REBOUND (Off:4 Def:8) 108–111
Q4 0:19 MISS J. Suggs 30' pullup 3PT 108–111
Q4 0:25 W. Carter Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 108–111
Q4 0:28 MISS F. Wagner 29' 3PT 108–111
Q4 0:31 L. Garza 28' 3PT turnaround (27 PTS) (D. Banton 7 AST) 108–111
Q4 0:36 J. Suggs 24' 3PT running pullup (23 PTS) (P. Banchero 11 AST) 108–108
Q4 0:40 P. Banchero REBOUND (Off:4 Def:6) 105–108

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

BOS Boston Celtics
30
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+20.0

An absolute masterclass in shot-making (+7.0) and elite scoring value (+21.6) propelled his massive overall impact. He consistently punished defensive rotations by converting highly difficult perimeter looks, completely offsetting his turnover issues (-4.6). His aggressive floor-spacing warped the opponent's defensive shell, opening up secondary creation opportunities (+2.9) for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 6/14 (42.9%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +21.6
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Luka Garza 38.0m
27
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+24.5

Utter dominance on the glass (+13.3 hustle) and elite scoring efficiency (+20.5) fueled a monstrous positive impact. He bullied mismatches inside and converted difficult looks at a high clip (+5.8 shot-making), easily absorbing the cost of his turnovers (-5.4). This was a textbook example of a big man weaponizing his size to completely dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +13.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ron Harper Jr. 36.6m
27
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+26.5

A staggering two-way masterclass defined by elite defensive playmaking (+7.1) and explosive shot-making (+6.7) drove his massive impact score. He dominated the margins with relentless hustle (+8.9) and high-leverage scoring (+19.6), completely overshadowing his sloppy ball security (-7.1 TO). His ability to seamlessly transition from point-of-attack menace to offensive flamethrower broke the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +19.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +8.9
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jordan Walsh 33.1m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Poor defensive metrics (-2.1) and negative turnover value (-2.4) dragged down an otherwise energetic rebounding performance (+6.3 hustle). While he provided a slight scoring boost (+2.9), his inability to stay in front of his man or secure the ball negated his blue-collar contributions. The underlying data reveals a chaotic shift where his physical tools couldn't mask his lack of discipline.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Max Shulga 17.8m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Costly turnovers (-2.4) and defensive liabilities (-1.4) completely erased his modest hustle contributions (+3.8). He offered zero playmaking value (+0.0 creation) and barely registered as a scoring threat, rendering his minutes highly inefficient. The metrics highlight a player who struggled to process the speed of the game on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-18.9

Catastrophic turnover damage (-13.7) completely nuked his overall value despite solid defensive metrics (+2.8). His inability to protect the basketball fueled opponent transition opportunities, rendering his minor hustle contributions (+2.2) meaningless. This was a disastrous playmaking stint where poor decision-making actively sabotaged the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -13.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 6
John Tonje 29.6m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Glaring defensive liabilities (-2.6) dragged down a highly efficient perimeter scoring display (+6.3). He hit difficult shots at a premium rate (+3.3 shot-making) and protected the ball perfectly (+0.0 TO), but was routinely targeted on the other end of the floor. His inability to string together stops ultimately neutralized his offensive firepower.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.4

Sloppy turnovers (-3.1) and poor defensive positioning (-1.6) resulted in a deeply negative overall impact. He provided virtually no resistance in the paint and failed to generate any meaningful hustle metrics (+0.3) to justify his floor time. The underlying data exposes a passive shift where he was consistently exploited on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
ORL Orlando Magic
S Jalen Suggs 38.0m
23
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

A massive shot-making bonus (+7.4) and explosive scoring value (+15.8) powered his impact, completely offsetting severe turnover issues (-9.5). His perimeter flamethrowing punished defensive drop coverages, turning difficult looks into high-leverage points. Despite the chaotic ball-handling, his point-of-attack defensive disruption (+2.6) ensured his aggressive gambles paid off.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +7.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Paolo Banchero 37.9m
23
pts
10
reb
11
ast
Impact
+2.6

Catastrophic turnover damage (-13.7) nearly wiped out a dominant rebounding effort (+10.8) and strong scoring output (+11.2). His relentless bully-ball approach yielded high-value attempts at the rim, but sloppy decision-making in traffic derailed several offensive possessions. The massive hustle metrics kept his overall impact afloat despite the erratic ball security.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +10.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -13.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
3
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

A glaring lack of offensive aggression (-1.4 scoring) and costly turnovers (-4.7) dragged his overall value into the negatives. Though he battled valiantly on the glass (+7.2 hustle), his defensive lapses (-2.7) and passive perimeter positioning severely limited his effectiveness. This performance was defined by empty minutes where he vanished from the offensive game plan entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense -2.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Franz Wagner 26.2m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

Elite scoring value (+11.8) and shot-making bonuses (+4.3) fueled his positive impact, overcoming minor turnover damage (-2.4). His aggressive downhill attacks consistently generated high-value looks, allowing him to bypass his recent perimeter shooting slump. The underlying metrics show a player who weaponized his gravity rather than settling for contested jumpers.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 17.6m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Flawless ball security (+0.0 TO) and disciplined defensive positioning (+2.9) salvaged a relatively quiet offensive outing. Rather than forcing up bad looks during a scoring dip, he generated subtle value by attacking the glass (+2.5 hustle) and converting the few difficult attempts he took (+1.8 shot-making). It was a masterclass in finding alternative ways to impact winning when the primary shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Costly giveaways (-3.5 TO) and a lack of creation volume (+0.5) undercut a solid two-way effort. He provided positive defensive resistance (+2.4) and converted his looks efficiently (+1.7 shot-making), but struggled to process defensive rotations when pressured. This outing highlighted the growing pains of a young wing trying to balance off-ball spacing with secondary playmaking duties.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Sloppy ball security (-5.4 TO) nearly erased a highly efficient scoring barrage (+9.4) and strong hustle metrics (+3.8). He consistently hit difficult shots above expectation (+2.5 shot-making), but his erratic decision-making in transition stalled the offense's momentum. Ultimately, his aggressive downhill attacks yielded just enough value to keep his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Goga Bitadze 16.4m
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Brutal defensive metrics (-3.7) and sloppy turnovers (-2.4) sabotaged an otherwise dominant rebounding performance (+6.0 hustle). While he capitalized on his few offensive touches (+4.5 scoring), his inability to anchor the paint or deter rim attempts proved costly. The stark contrast between his interior physicality on the glass and his porous rim protection defined this frustrating stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 15.7m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Defensive liabilities (-1.6) and near-total offensive invisibility dragged his impact deep into the red. He failed to generate any meaningful shot-making value (+0.0) or creation (+0.4), essentially operating as a spectator during his rotation minutes. Without his typical high-energy hustle plays to fall back on, the underlying metrics exposed his lack of half-court utility.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 14.6m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

A complete lack of playmaking (+0.0 creation) and costly turnovers (-2.4) doomed his overall impact despite solid point-of-attack defense (+2.4). He failed to generate meaningful scoring value (+1.3) or tilt the floor offensively, rendering his minutes largely stagnant. His inability to organize the second unit effectively outweighed his defensive tenacity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1