Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
TOR lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
TOR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 166 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Etienne Hard 6/16 -2.9
Johnson Open 6/14 -4.5
Liddell Hard 5/10 +3.0
Saraf Open 6/10 -0.6
Powell Hard 3/10 -3.8
Smith Hard 3/9 -1.1
Wilson 3/9 -2.8
Scott 3/8 -0.9

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 9/15 +3.7
Barnes Open 8/11 +2.3
Ingram 7/10 +6.4
Lawson 4/6 +2.8
Shead Hard 3/6 +0.4
Quickley 2/6 -2.4
Poeltl Open 5/5 +3.8
Mamukelashvili 4/5 +3.5
Walter Hard 3/5 +3.3
Dick 1/4 -2.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
TOR
35/86 Field Goals 51/80
40.7% Field Goal % 63.7%
9/34 3-Pointers 12/27
26.5% 3-Point % 44.4%
22/29 Free Throws 22/29
75.9% Free Throw % 75.9%
51.1% True Shooting % 73.3%
44 Total Rebounds 50
13 Offensive 3
25 Defensive 40
21 Assists 36
1.31 Assist/TO Ratio 3.60
15 Turnovers 10
9 Steals 9
0 Blocks 8
27 Fouls 20
44 Points in Paint 72
10 Fast Break Pts 40
11 Points off TOs 23
9 Second Chance Pts 7
45 Bench Points 52
6 Largest Lead 38
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Scottie Barnes
18 PTS · 12 REB · 12 AST · 32.0 MIN
+28.3
2
Brandon Ingram
25 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 32.0 MIN
+25.33
3
Chaney Johnson
16 PTS · 13 REB · 2 AST · 36.3 MIN
+16.28
4
RJ Barrett
26 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 28.6 MIN
+15.19
5
Tyson Etienne
20 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 36.8 MIN
+12.89
6
E.J. Liddell
17 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 27.4 MIN
+11.41
7
Sandro Mamukelashvili
9 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 17.6 MIN
+9.78
8
Ja'Kobe Walter
11 PTS · 0 REB · 1 AST · 24.1 MIN
+9.5
9
Ben Saraf
15 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 26.4 MIN
+7.9
10
Jakob Poeltl
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 19.2 MIN
+7.65
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:16 T. Etienne 24' 3PT running (20 PTS) (C. Johnson 2 AST) 101–136
Q4 0:19 M. Smith REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 98–136
Q4 0:22 MISS T. Jackson-Davis driving Hook 98–136
Q4 0:42 G. Temple REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 98–136
Q4 0:45 MISS T. Scott 25' step back 3PT 98–136
Q4 0:52 G. Temple 3PT (3 PTS) (J. Mogbo 2 AST) 98–136
Q4 1:04 T. Jackson-Davis REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 98–133
Q4 1:07 MISS T. Etienne 26' 3PT 98–133
Q4 1:10 T. Scott REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 98–133
Q4 1:14 MISS D. Powell 26' 3PT 98–133
Q4 1:30 J. Battle 6' floating Jump Shot (2 PTS) (G. Temple 1 AST) 98–133
Q4 1:41 C. Johnson running DUNK (16 PTS) 98–131
Q4 1:44 C. Johnson REBOUND (Off:5 Def:8) 96–131
Q4 1:46 MISS G. Dick driving finger roll Layup 96–131
Q4 1:55 G. Temple STEAL (1 STL) 96–131

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 32.0m
25
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.6

An absolute masterclass in offensive execution (+22.8 Scoring) and difficult shot creation (+4.3 Shot Making) drove this elite performance against New York. He supplemented his lethal isolation scoring with excellent work on the glass (+7.5 Hustle), completely overwhelming the defense despite minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +22.8
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +7.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 32.0m
18
pts
12
reb
12
ast
Impact
+18.8

Two-way dominance defined this shift against the Knicks, highlighted by robust scoring efficiency (+15.8) and suffocating defensive activity (+3.8). He operated as a flawless connective hub, blending high-level creation (+3.8) with physical rebounding to dictate the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +46.0
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +3.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 28.6m
26
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.3

Relentless downhill attacking fueled a massive scoring output (+20.1) and a stellar shot-making bonus (+4.9). He simply overpowered his matchups offensively, which easily masked his glaring defensive breakdowns (-4.0) on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +20.1
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 19.2m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

A brutal turnover penalty (-7.1) completely erased an otherwise highly efficient interior scoring night (+9.0). While he provided solid rim protection (+2.1 Defense), his recurring pattern of failing to secure the ball in traffic sabotaged his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite putting on an absolute clinic at the point of attack (+4.7 Defense), his offensive invisibility dragged down his overall rating. A lack of scoring gravity (+0.9) and minimal shot-making impact prevented him from capitalizing on his elite defensive effort, continuing a pattern of maddening inconsistency.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Lethal perimeter execution (+9.3 Scoring) and a strong shot-making bonus (+2.8) carried his value in this matchup. He provided just enough defensive resistance (+1.0) to ensure his minor turnover issues didn't sink his positive offensive contributions, showcasing his ceiling as a floor-spacer.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 20.2m
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.0

Costly giveaways (-4.7 TO) and a complete lack of playmaking creation (+0.1) doomed this rotational stint. While he managed a slight positive in scoring (+3.8), his erratic decision-making as a floor general severely hurt the team's offensive rhythm throughout the game.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.8

Efficient offensive execution (+8.2 Scoring) and solid shot-making (+2.3) kept his head above water during this stint. However, his overall impact was muted by defensive vulnerabilities (-1.9) that allowed opponents to easily counter his scoring production, reflecting his season-long volatility.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.7

Disastrous defensive execution (-6.5) was the primary culprit behind this heavily negative outing. He offered virtually no resistance against his matchups, and his passive offensive output (+2.0 Scoring) did nothing to offset the bleeding on the other end, breaking his recent pattern of two-way anchoring.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +53.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
A.J. Lawson 10.6m
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A strong scoring punch (+8.3) and tough shot-making (+2.5) were entirely offset by his defensive liabilities (-1.6) and zero playmaking creation. He operated strictly as a one-dimensional finisher, failing to generate any value on the glass or as a facilitator during his brief minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +47.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

A solid defensive showing (+2.4) wasn't enough to overcome his extreme offensive passivity in this short stint. He generated minimal scoring value (+2.0) and failed to make an impact on the glass, rendering him a minor liability overall due to his persistent lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Strong effort on the boards (+3.1 Hustle) and efficient interior finishing (+3.3 Scoring) highlighted this brief appearance. However, defensive lapses (-1.1) and a complete lack of playmaking creation kept his overall impact in the red, reflecting his highly volatile rotational value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

An inability to assert himself offensively (+1.2 Scoring) or register any hustle stats (+0.0) doomed this empty rotational shift. He floated through his minutes without making a tangible mark on the game, leading to a steep negative impact driven by his pattern of defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Failing to generate any meaningful value in scoring (+0.8), creation (+0.2), or hustle (+0.0) highlighted a severely passive and ineffective shift. Complete statistical invisibility during his minutes on the floor resulted in a heavily negative rating, continuing his pattern of offensive hesitancy.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Veteran defensive positioning (+2.4) and a quick scoring burst (+3.0) provided some value during his brief time on the court. Unfortunately, his lack of playmaking (+0.0 Creation) and minimal rebounding presence prevented him from breaking even, a common pattern for his end-of-rotation cameos.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Malachi Smith 35.5m
8
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.9

Defensive breakdowns (-4.7) and sloppy ball security (-4.7 TO) completely derailed his outing despite solid effort on the glass. Even with a positive shot-making bonus (+2.4) from converting difficult looks, his inability to string together stops against Milwaukee's backcourt negated any offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S E.J. Liddell 27.4m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.4

A massive scoring punch (+12.7) and excellent shot-making (+4.1) fueled his positive impact during this high-volume offensive explosion against Milwaukee. While defensive lapses (-2.9) and a few costly turnovers (-3.1) dragged down his overall ceiling, his aggressive perimeter shooting masked those flaws.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ben Saraf 26.4m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

He thrived as a tough shot-maker (+2.8) and crashed the glass effectively (+3.8), but a catastrophic turnover penalty (-9.5) nearly wiped out his brilliant scoring performance (+11.5). His reckless decision-making in high-leverage moments kept his overall value grounded.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Trevon Scott 26.1m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Disastrous ball security (-4.7 TO penalty) sabotaged what was otherwise a passable rotational shift. He managed to generate a positive shot-making bonus (+2.3), but his recurring pattern of executing sloppy offensive sets erased that value entirely.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Drake Powell 25.2m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Crippling turnover issues (-4.7) ruined his overall effectiveness, despite providing a solid defensive presence (+2.4). His offensive passivity overshadowed a modest shot-making boost (+1.4), continuing a frustrating season-long pattern of self-sabotage.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -59.3
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.6

Lethal perimeter execution drove a massive scoring boost (+11.2) and a strong shot-making bonus (+3.8). He also chipped in with disruptive point-of-attack defense (+2.9), proving he could impact the game on both ends despite a pattern of minor turnovers.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -25.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.4

Total dominance on the glass (+16.5 Hustle) defined this monster performance, providing critical extra possessions. He paired that relentless rebounding with highly efficient scoring (+9.0), easily overcoming a minor turnover penalty to dictate the game's physicality from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +16.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 26.4m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Elite rebounding effort (+10.2 Hustle) kept him afloat during a shift marred by poor ball security (-5.4 TO). His defensive struggles (-2.6) and a pattern of reckless giveaways ultimately outweighed his gritty work on the boards, resulting in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -51.8
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +10.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2