Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero 7/22 -10.9
Bane Hard 10/16 +8.4
Wagner 5/11 -1.7
Suggs Hard 1/9 -5.5
Black 4/8 -0.6
Carter Jr. 1/7 -6.0
Cain 2/5 -0.9
da Silva Open 2/2 +1.8
Bitadze Open 1/1 +0.6

PHI PHI Shot-making Δ

Maxey Hard 11/25 +4.2
George Hard 6/16 -1.3
Edgecombe 7/16 -1.5
Oubre Jr. Hard 6/12 +4.7
Drummond Open 5/8 +1.9
Barlow Open 2/4 -1.3
Grimes 1/3 -1.4
Bona Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
PHI
33/81 Field Goals 38/85
40.7% Field Goal % 44.7%
7/27 3-Pointers 12/35
25.9% 3-Point % 34.3%
24/31 Free Throws 21/25
77.4% Free Throw % 84.0%
51.2% True Shooting % 56.8%
57 Total Rebounds 50
9 Offensive 7
32 Defensive 33
19 Assists 17
1.27 Assist/TO Ratio 1.42
14 Turnovers 11
5 Steals 8
4 Blocks 9
21 Fouls 27
44 Points in Paint 38
15 Fast Break Pts 12
13 Points off TOs 15
14 Second Chance Pts 14
24 Bench Points 22
3 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Andre Drummond
14 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 31.5 MIN
+26.55
2
Desmond Bane
34 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 39.7 MIN
+19.42
3
Tyrese Maxey
31 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 42.4 MIN
+16.18
4
Paul George
16 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 36.0 MIN
+12.31
5
Kelly Oubre Jr.
19 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 40.3 MIN
+11.4
6
Wendell Carter Jr.
5 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 31.9 MIN
+9.37
7
Franz Wagner
12 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 29.3 MIN
+7.78
8
Anthony Black
13 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 22.2 MIN
+6.66
9
VJ Edgecombe
19 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 41.9 MIN
+5.88
10
Goga Bitadze
2 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 15.5 MIN
+5.33
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 PHI shot clock Team TURNOVER 97–109
Q4 0:31 T. Maxey REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 97–109
Q4 0:35 MISS W. Carter Jr. 26' 3PT 97–109
Q4 0:41 A. Drummond 24' 3PT (14 PTS) (K. Oubre Jr. 1 AST) 97–109
Q4 0:55 TEAM defensive REBOUND 97–106
Q4 0:57 MISS P. Banchero driving finger roll Layup 97–106
Q4 1:06 K. Oubre Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 97–106
Q4 1:06 K. Oubre Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 97–105
Q4 1:06 W. Carter Jr. shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Oubre Jr. 2 FT) 97–104
Q4 1:09 P. George REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 97–104
Q4 1:11 T. Maxey BLOCK (1 BLK) 97–104
Q4 1:11 MISS J. Suggs running finger roll Layup - blocked 97–104
Q4 1:15 J. Suggs REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 97–104
Q4 1:19 MISS P. George 10' step back Shot 97–104
Q4 1:40 P. George REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 97–104

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

PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 42.4m
31
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.7

An astronomical +20.4 scoring value and +7.3 shot-making bonus showcased his ability to hit heavily contested jumpers and carry a massive offensive burden. Despite a sloppy handle that resulted in a -7.1 turnover penalty, his sheer scoring gravity overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +7.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S VJ Edgecombe 41.9m
19
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Explosive downhill scoring (+12.5) and tough shot conversion (+3.5) highlighted a dynamic offensive showing. However, reckless passing (-7.0 turnovers) and defensive lapses (-1.6) heavily diluted his overall value, turning what could have been a masterclass into a modest positive.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 40.3m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

A blistering perimeter display drove a stellar +14.2 scoring value and a +5.1 shot-making bonus, as he consistently drained high-degree-of-difficulty looks. The only blemish on an otherwise electric offensive performance was his erratic decision-making, which cost the team -5.4 in turnover penalties.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paul George 36.0m
16
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.0

Flawless ball security (+0.0 turnovers) provided a stable foundation for his highly efficient shot-making (+3.8). He methodically picked apart the defense to generate +8.2 in scoring value, operating as a steady, mistake-free offensive engine throughout his shift.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Adem Bona 16.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

While his motor ran hot on the glass (+3.8 hustle), his inability to anchor the paint (-0.7 defense) severely limited his effectiveness. A lack of offensive gravity (+1.5 scoring) compounded his defensive struggles, resulting in a distinctly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
14
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.4

Absolute physical dominance in the paint yielded a massive +9.8 hustle rating and a suffocating +6.4 defensive mark. He paired this elite interior presence with surprisingly efficient finishing (+11.2 scoring) and flawless ball security, resulting in a game-wrecking +22.4 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +9.8
Defense +6.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Excellent positional rebounding generated a strong +5.1 hustle value, but his point-of-attack resistance completely collapsed (-2.9 defense). With his perimeter shot failing to provide much lift (+2.4 scoring), the defensive bleeding ultimately tanked his overall rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Catastrophic mistakes with the ball in his hands (-5.4 turnovers) completely unraveled his stint on the floor. Combined with a porous defensive showing (-2.0), his minor contributions on the glass (+2.5 hustle) were entirely overshadowed by his self-inflicted wounds.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 39.7m
34
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.2

An absolute flamethrower performance yielded a massive +29.2 scoring value and +6.8 shot-making bonus, showcasing his ability to hit heavily contested jumpers. However, an uncharacteristically sloppy handle (-11.8 turnover penalty) and defensive leaks (-4.2) prevented this from being a truly historic overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Scoring +29.2
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jalen Suggs 37.4m
4
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Suffocating point-of-attack pressure generated an elite +5.0 defensive rating, but his offensive execution was severely lacking. Miss penalties (-2.3 scoring) and careless giveaways (-2.4 turnovers) ultimately outweighed his defensive brilliance, highlighting a frustratingly one-sided outing.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.2%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paolo Banchero 36.0m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.6

Catastrophic ball security completely sabotaged his evening, as a massive -14.9 turnover penalty erased entirely positive offensive and hustle contributions. Even with strong rebounding value (+5.4) and tough shot conversion (+2.6), his sloppy decision-making in traffic proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 7/22 (31.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
5
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Elite work on the glass (+13.0 hustle) single-handedly buoyed his impact score on a night where his scoring value completely vanished (+0.0). He dominated the interior positioning battle, generating massive hidden value through extra possessions despite being a non-factor as a shooter.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +13.0
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Franz Wagner 29.3m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Despite strong scoring metrics (+7.4) and positive shot-making (+2.2) indicating he hit tough looks, defensive lapses (-2.5) dragged his overall value down to near neutral. His inability to get stops on the perimeter ultimately negated a highly efficient downhill attacking performance.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Strong downhill aggression fueled a solid +8.0 scoring mark, while his activity on the glass added +3.7 in hustle value. However, defensive breakdowns (-2.2) and sloppy ball security (-2.4 turnovers) nearly erased all of his offensive equity, leaving him with a barely positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 15.5m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Despite decent work on the boards (+2.5 hustle), his lack of rim deterrence (-1.1 defense) proved problematic during his minutes. He simply didn't provide enough offensive force (+2.0 scoring) to offset the defensive bleeding, leading to a highly detrimental overall stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.8%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 14.5m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

While he managed to squeeze out minor positive value in scoring (+2.3) and shot-making (+1.1) during his reserve shift, his overall impact plunged into the negative. A lack of defensive resistance (-0.3) and minimal hustle stats (+0.6) failed to move the needle during a highly ineffective rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

A costly string of turnovers (-2.4) and absolute playmaking invisibility (+0.0 creation) severely hampered his overall effectiveness. Although he found some success scoring the ball (+4.0), his inability to generate looks for others or secure the margins resulted in a deeply negative rotation shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1