Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson 16/27 +8.4
Anunoby 8/13 +4.9
Bridges 7/13 +0.8
Hart 6/12 -0.7
Towns Hard 9/11 +9.4
Kolek Hard 2/3 +1.4
Clarkson Hard 1/3 -0.8
Robinson Open 2/2 +1.7

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 10/22 -2.5
Bane 7/17 -1.7
Suggs Hard 10/16 +5.7
Black Hard 5/15 -4.2
Carter Jr. 4/6 +3.2
Howard Hard 3/5 +3.0
Isaac 2/5 -0.9
da Silva Hard 0/5 -5.3
Richardson 3/4 +3.4
Jones Hard 1/2 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
ORL
51/84 Field Goals 45/97
60.7% Field Goal % 46.4%
7/20 3-Pointers 13/42
35.0% 3-Point % 31.0%
23/31 Free Throws 17/25
74.2% Free Throw % 68.0%
67.6% True Shooting % 55.6%
48 Total Rebounds 53
8 Offensive 12
33 Defensive 29
28 Assists 28
2.33 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
12 Turnovers 14
9 Steals 9
7 Blocks 3
23 Fouls 24
70 Points in Paint 62
20 Fast Break Pts 19
17 Points off TOs 21
13 Second Chance Pts 19
11 Bench Points 25
12 Largest Lead 6
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Karl-Anthony Towns
29 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 37.2 MIN
+31.57
2
Jalen Brunson
40 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 38.6 MIN
+28.92
3
Wendell Carter Jr.
14 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 35.4 MIN
+22.86
4
OG Anunoby
24 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 40.2 MIN
+22.25
5
Jalen Suggs
26 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 29.5 MIN
+17.46
6
Mitchell Robinson
5 PTS · 9 REB · 0 AST · 17.4 MIN
+14.16
7
Mikal Bridges
16 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 42.5 MIN
+10.16
8
Josh Hart
12 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 31.3 MIN
+10.15
9
Paolo Banchero
25 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 35.3 MIN
+9.88
10
Jase Richardson
9 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 7.6 MIN
+9.39
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 132–120
Q4 0:16 MISS P. Banchero cutting Layup 132–120
Q4 0:19 W. Carter Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 132–120
Q4 0:22 MISS P. Banchero 25' step back 3PT 132–120
Q4 0:27 P. Banchero REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 132–120
Q4 0:29 MISS O. Anunoby Free Throw 2 of 2 132–120
Q4 0:29 O. Anunoby Free Throw 1 of 2 (24 PTS) 132–120
Q4 0:29 J. Howard shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Anunoby 2 FT) 131–120
Q4 0:31 O. Anunoby STEAL (3 STL) 131–120
Q4 0:31 P. Banchero bad pass TURNOVER (5 TO) 131–120
Q4 0:37 K. Towns DUNK (29 PTS) (O. Anunoby 4 AST) 131–120
Q4 0:41 P. Banchero Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 129–120
Q4 0:41 TEAM offensive REBOUND 129–119
Q4 0:41 MISS P. Banchero Free Throw 1 of 2 129–119
Q4 0:41 J. Hart personal FOUL (6 PF) (Banchero 2 FT) 129–119

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 37.5m
18
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.7

A heavy volume of contested mid-range jumpers severely dragged down his offensive efficiency and overall net rating. Furthermore, his inability to stay in front of quick guards at the point of attack led to a negative defensive score that compounded the team's struggles. The scoring output was largely empty calories that failed to translate into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Anthony Black 36.5m
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.8

Wasted offensive possessions and poor perimeter efficiency torpedoed his net impact, making him a massive offensive liability. While his point-of-attack defense and ball pressure were genuinely disruptive, his inability to capitalize on open spot-up looks allowed the opposition to completely ignore him in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.5

Flawless shot selection and punishing screens fueled a highly positive two-way performance. He anchored the drop coverage beautifully to earn a stellar defensive score, consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions while stretching the floor perfectly on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 72.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Paolo Banchero 35.3m
25
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

A disastrous performance from beyond the arc completely neutralized his otherwise solid interior scoring and defensive versatility. By missing every perimeter attempt, he allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling the half-court offense and driving his total impact into the red. His strong weak-side rim rotations were not enough to salvage the offensive spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jalen Suggs 29.5m
26
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.1

Aggressive downhill drives generated a massive scoring surge, but his overall impact was heavily muted by erratic perimeter chucking. He uncharacteristically struggled with screen navigation on defense, bleeding points to opposing guards and dragging his total net rating down to a marginal positive.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jett Howard 14.6m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by knocking down open catch-and-shoot opportunities to keep the floor spaced. His slight positive impact was capped by defensive limitations, as he struggled to contain straight-line drives when isolated on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 12.6m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Operated strictly as a defensive anchor and screen-setter, completely eschewing offensive touches to focus on dirty work. His sturdy post defense and rim deterrence kept his overall impact slightly above water despite offering zero scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.5

A complete offensive blackout cratered his impact score as he forced heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, making his brief stint on the floor highly detrimental to the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -73.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring -3.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Provided a quick spark with timely cuts and decisive offensive reads during a brief rotation. However, his usually elite defensive presence was surprisingly absent, as he was caught out of position on several weak-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 9.5m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Passive offensive initiation allowed the defense to dictate the tempo during his minutes running the second unit. A lack of aggressive rim pressure resulted in stagnant possessions, ultimately driving a negative net rating despite avoiding major mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Instant offensive combustion defined this electric cameo, as he punished lazy closeouts with decisive perimeter shot-making. His ability to instantly stretch the floor against the second unit drove a highly efficient positive impact in under eight minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 42.5m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Despite finding success on mid-range pull-ups, his overall impact plummeted to a concerning -9.7 due to severe spacing issues and a lack of perimeter volume. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, resulting in an uncharacteristically low defensive score. The offense consistently stalled during his heavy minutes when he failed to pressure the defense from deep.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.5m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 40.2m
24
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.3

A masterclass in two-way wing play fueled a dominant +10.4 defensive rating alongside highly efficient perimeter shot selection. Taking advantage of smaller matchups in the post, he punished closeouts while completely shutting down the opponent's primary actions on the other end. His two-way synergy drove a stellar overall positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Scoring +20.2
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Brunson 38.6m
40
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+24.8

Relentless rim pressure and elite isolation footwork generated a massive +29.7 box impact score. He systematically dismantled the opposing backcourt with an array of floaters and foul-drawing drives, completely carrying the offensive load. While his point-of-attack defense remained vulnerable, his sheer scoring gravity dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 16/27 (59.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.6%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +31.1
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +9.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
29
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+32.8

Near-perfect shot selection around the rim and excellent spacing created a staggering +29.4 box impact. He consistently abused drop coverage in the pick-and-pop, forcing the defense into impossible rotations. Solid rim deterrence further cemented a dominant overall showing.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +26.9
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Josh Hart 31.3m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.0

Elite defensive rotations and constant motor on the glass generated a massive +7.8 defensive impact score. However, his total net rating was dragged down to a modest +1.3 by a complete inability to stretch the floor from the perimeter. Opponents sagging off him allowed them to clog the paint during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +3.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.6

Elite rim protection and vertical spacing anchored a highly positive +9.5 total impact score in limited action. He completely altered the geometry of the paint, deterring drives and creating second-chance opportunities through sheer physicality on the interior.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 15.8m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.0

Occasional flashes of playmaking could not overcome a negative overall net rating driven by defensive mismatches. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, negating the value of his steady offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +52.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.2

Forced isolations and stagnant ball movement cratered his net impact during a disastrous second-quarter rotation. He bled value on the defensive end by dying on screens, allowing open perimeter looks that fueled an opponent run.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.6

A brief, ineffective stint resulted in a negative overall impact as he struggled to find the pace of the game. Defensive lapses in transition during his few minutes on the floor quickly forced him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0