Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Williamson Open 10/21 -3.4
Murphy III 5/15 -5.4
Poole Hard 6/14 +1.4
Jones 6/14 -0.8
Bey 5/12 -1.8
Fears Open 7/10 +2.5
Missi Open 2/4 -1.6
Queen 1/4 -2.3
Hawkins Hard 2/2 +4.0
Dickinson Hard 1/2 +0.4

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Morant 13/20 +7.2
Jackson Jr. Hard 7/14 +0.3
Wells Hard 4/8 +3.4
Caldwell-Pope Hard 2/8 -2.6
Landale 3/7 -1.2
Aldama 2/7 -3.9
Coward Open 5/5 +3.8
Prosper Open 3/5 -0.1
Spencer Hard 2/4 +2.1
Small Hard 0/2 -2.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
MEM
45/98 Field Goals 41/80
45.9% Field Goal % 51.2%
10/27 3-Pointers 11/37
37.0% 3-Point % 29.7%
22/31 Free Throws 35/43
71.0% Free Throw % 81.4%
54.6% True Shooting % 64.7%
58 Total Rebounds 53
17 Offensive 6
30 Defensive 33
20 Assists 20
1.33 Assist/TO Ratio 1.18
14 Turnovers 17
10 Steals 5
4 Blocks 12
30 Fouls 29
66 Points in Paint 56
19 Fast Break Pts 22
21 Points off TOs 21
23 Second Chance Pts 4
43 Bench Points 36
15 Largest Lead 10
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Zion Williamson
27 PTS · 9 REB · 5 AST · 33.5 MIN
+27.55
2
Ja Morant
35 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 28.7 MIN
+27.45
3
Cedric Coward
14 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 22.2 MIN
+19.4
4
Herbert Jones
17 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 36.2 MIN
+17.04
5
Saddiq Bey
13 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 29.6 MIN
+12.14
6
Jeremiah Fears
17 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 18.3 MIN
+10.16
7
Olivier-Maxence Prosper
10 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 15.5 MIN
+9.31
8
Jordan Poole
17 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 31.2 MIN
+9.12
9
Jaren Jackson Jr.
18 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 26.6 MIN
+8.13
10
Jordan Hawkins
8 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 17.0 MIN
+7.0
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 J. Morant Free Throw 2 of 2 (35 PTS) 122–128
Q4 0:01 J. Morant Free Throw 1 of 2 (34 PTS) 122–127
Q4 0:01 T. Murphy III take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Morant 2 FT) 122–126
Q4 0:05 Z. Williamson bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 122–126
Q4 0:05 K. Caldwell-Pope Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 122–126
Q4 0:05 K. Caldwell-Pope Free Throw 1 of 2 (14 PTS) 122–125
Q4 0:05 S. Bey take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Caldwell-Pope 2 FT) 122–124
Q4 0:08 Z. Williamson tip Layup (27 PTS) 122–124
Q4 0:08 Z. Williamson REBOUND (Off:5 Def:4) 120–124
Q4 0:09 MISS Z. Williamson 8' driving Layup 120–124
Q4 0:16 O. Prosper Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 120–124
Q4 0:16 O. Prosper Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 120–123
Q4 0:16 T. Murphy III personal FOUL (3 PF) (Prosper 2 FT) 120–122
Q4 0:24 Z. Williamson tip Layup (25 PTS) 120–122
Q4 0:24 Z. Williamson REBOUND (Off:4 Def:4) 118–122

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
game swinger
Ja Morant actually won the night
35 points, 3 boards, 3 assists was the line. The lift came from scoring (+29.7), shot-making (+7.1), and creation (+2.9), pushing Net Impact to +26.0.
Scoring +29.7
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Shot-making +7.1
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Creation +2.9
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Check the tape
hidden value
Cedric Coward's value was hiding in plain sight
14 points, 3 boards, 1 assist undersells it. scoring (+14.0), defense (+4.6), and shot-making (+1.5) pushed his Net Impact to +11.8.
Scoring +14.0
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +4.6
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +1.5
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Kentavious Caldwell-Pope too hard
15 points, 4 boards, 3 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-7.1) and defense (-3.4), pulling Net Impact down to -4.5.
Turnovers -7.1
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -3.4
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Hustle +1.2
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jaren Jackson Jr. too hard
18 points, 8 boards, 1 assist was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-13.9), pulling Net Impact down to +1.2.
Turnovers -13.9
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Creation +0.9
Assist credit weighted by shot quality created.
Shot-making +3.5
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

A disastrous perimeter shooting night completely tanked his overall value. He repeatedly misfired on clean catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to aggressively pack the paint. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, the half-court offense ground to a halt during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ja Morant 28.7m
35
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+26.0

An absolute masterclass in downhill attacking shattered the opposing defensive shell. He relentlessly punished drop coverages, generating elite rim pressure that warped the entire floor and spiked his box score metrics. Active hands in the passing lanes further amplified his massive two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +29.7
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 27.5m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.2

Sizzling perimeter shot-making couldn't overcome the negative impact of his defensive rotations. He was frequently caught ball-watching, surrendering back-door cuts that negated his offensive contributions. Despite breaking out of a scoring slump, his off-ball lapses proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Elite rim deterrence anchored the defense and drove his immense positive impact. Even with a broken three-point stroke, his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls and alter shots in the paint dictated the terms of engagement. He effectively walled off the restricted area, forcing opponents into low-percentage mid-range jumpers.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +9.2
Defense -0.5
Turnovers -13.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 6
TO 5
S Jock Landale 25.4m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Struggled to anchor the interior, bleeding points in the paint when forced into drop coverage. While he provided some offensive utility as a pop threat, his inability to secure the defensive glass gave opponents crucial second-chance opportunities. The overall impact cratered due to a lack of physical presence down low.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense -7.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Santi Aldama 24.2m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Offensive spacing evaporated as he repeatedly clanked open looks from beyond the arc. While he competed hard on the glass and maintained decent defensive positioning, his inability to punish closeouts severely handicapped the half-court sets. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, bogging down the entire offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

Perfect shooting execution and stifling perimeter defense resulted in a spectacular two-way showing. He ruthlessly exploited defensive breakdowns, converting every opportunity while simultaneously locking down his primary assignment. His ability to seamlessly connect the offense without demanding the ball was the catalyst for his high impact score.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.6%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +49.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Javon Small 19.3m
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.7

Complete offensive invisibility torpedoed his net impact during a rough stint. He failed to initiate any meaningful actions, operating passively on the perimeter and allowing the defense to rest. The lack of aggression was a stark departure from his recent form, stalling the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Surgical efficiency around the basket highlighted a highly effective, low-usage shift. He capitalized on broken plays and defensive miscommunications, finishing strongly through contact to maintain his recent hot streak. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the value he created on offense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 12.2m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Timely floor-spacing provided a crucial spark during his limited time on the court. He punished defensive rotations with quick-trigger shooting, forcing opponents to respect his gravity on the perimeter. Active off-ball movement kept the offense humming and stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.0
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
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

A complete lack of offensive assertion rendered him a liability despite adequate defensive positioning. He passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim, allowing defenders to freely stunt and recover. Operating essentially as a non-factor on offense dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Herbert Jones 36.2m
17
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shooting fueled a highly efficient two-way performance. He consistently blew up dribble handoffs, generating transition opportunities that boosted his hustle metrics. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, his floor-spacing provided critical breathing room for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +6.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 33.5m
27
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+25.4

Utterly dominated the interior matchups, driving a massive positive impact through sheer physical force. His exceptional defensive metrics indicate he was blowing up pick-and-rolls and protecting the rim at an elite level. Relentless downhill pressure forced constant rotations and dictated the tempo all night.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +9.5
Defense +8.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
S Trey Murphy III 31.9m
13
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Poor shot selection from the perimeter heavily dragged down his overall impact. Clanking multiple crucial threes stalled offensive momentum and allowed defenders to sag off, clogging the paint. He failed to leverage his usual scoring gravity, bleeding value during key half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +7.9
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Poole 31.2m
17
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Offensive aggression masked glaring defensive lapses, resulting in a barely positive net impact. While his perimeter shot-making broke a recent cold streak, he frequently lost his man off the ball and offered little resistance at the point of attack. High-energy transition play kept his hustle metrics strong despite the half-court defensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Yves Missi 23.1m
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Active hands and solid rim protection kept his defensive metrics afloat, but a lack of offensive involvement cratered his overall score. He struggled to establish deep post position, rendering him largely invisible in half-court sets. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, shrinking the floor for primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Saddiq Bey 29.6m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Clunky perimeter execution limited what could have been a dominant wing performance. He found success attacking closeouts, but bricking multiple open spot-up looks prevented the offense from fully clicking. Solid rotational defense and effort on loose balls kept his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Slicing through the lane with elite finishing drove his offensive value, though defensive porousness capped his ceiling. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, collapsing the defense to create high-percentage looks. However, dying on screens at the other end gave back a significant portion of what he generated.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Flawless shooting execution was overshadowed by a complete lack of off-ball engagement. He operated strictly as a stationary floor spacer, failing to generate the secondary actions or defensive pressure needed to drive a positive impact. Opponents successfully hid their weakest defenders on him throughout his shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 138.9%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Derik Queen 14.5m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Gritty interior defense and relentless pursuit of loose balls salvaged a rough offensive outing. He struggled to finish through contact, missing several bunnies around the rim that suppressed his box score value. Still, his willingness to do the dirty work in the paint kept his team afloat during a stagnant stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense -4.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.0

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by an inability to anchor the drop coverage against quicker guards. He looked heavy-footed in space, bleeding value during his limited minutes as opponents targeted him in the pick-and-roll. Minimal offensive touches meant he couldn't offset the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -120.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2