Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 186 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Walker Hard 2/13 -8.0
Mathurin 8/12 +4.7
Siakam Hard 5/12 0.0
Toppin 5/12 -1.2
Nesmith Hard 5/11 +2.2
Dennis Hard 1/9 -6.2
Sheppard 4/8 0.0
Jackson Open 1/4 -3.4
Bradley 2/3 +0.6
Wiseman Open 2/3 +0.3

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Morant 5/14 -5.2
Coward 9/13 +9.4
Jackson Jr. 6/11 +1.3
Caldwell-Pope 3/11 -5.2
Wells Hard 2/10 -6.0
Aldama 4/9 -0.6
Spencer 3/8 -0.8
Landale 3/8 -2.3
Small 5/6 +6.3
Konchar Open 4/6 +0.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
MEM
36/89 Field Goals 44/97
40.4% Field Goal % 45.4%
14/40 3-Pointers 15/39
35.0% 3-Point % 38.5%
17/23 Free Throws 25/32
73.9% Free Throw % 78.1%
52.0% True Shooting % 57.6%
53 Total Rebounds 67
11 Offensive 10
33 Defensive 39
25 Assists 31
1.92 Assist/TO Ratio 5.17
13 Turnovers 4
2 Steals 6
5 Blocks 4
21 Fouls 22
36 Points in Paint 56
17 Fast Break Pts 19
5 Points off TOs 12
10 Second Chance Pts 19
36 Bench Points 69
2 Largest Lead 30
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cedric Coward
27 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 23.7 MIN
+30.14
2
Bennedict Mathurin
26 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 27.7 MIN
+22.81
3
John Konchar
9 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 24.6 MIN
+17.92
4
Ja Morant
19 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 27.2 MIN
+16.71
5
Javon Small
16 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 20.8 MIN
+15.48
6
Santi Aldama
9 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 20.9 MIN
+11.74
7
Ben Sheppard
9 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 24.3 MIN
+9.48
8
Aaron Nesmith
15 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 31.2 MIN
+9.32
9
Jaren Jackson Jr.
17 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 25.1 MIN
+7.8
10
Jock Landale
8 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 25.9 MIN
+7.5
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 MEM shot clock Team TURNOVER 103–128
Q4 0:26 T. Bradley running Layup (5 PTS) (R. Dennis 6 AST) 103–128
Q4 0:29 R. Dennis REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 101–128
Q4 0:33 MISS O. Prosper 24' 3PT 101–128
Q4 0:51 O. Prosper REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 101–128
Q4 0:54 MISS R. Dennis pullup 3PT 101–128
Q4 0:58 J. Wiseman REBOUND (Off:4 Def:0) 101–128
Q4 1:01 MISS T. Bradley 3PT 101–128
Q4 1:08 J. Wiseman REBOUND (Off:3 Def:0) 101–128
Q4 1:11 MISS J. Walker 27' 3PT 101–128
Q4 1:12 J. Huff REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 101–128
Q4 1:17 MISS T. Bradley Free Throw 2 of 2 101–128
Q4 1:17 T. Bradley Free Throw 1 of 2 (3 PTS) 101–128
Q4 1:17 J. Small personal FOUL (3 PF) (Bradley 2 FT) 100–128
Q4 1:17 T. Bradley STEAL (1 STL) 100–128

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

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Ja Morant 27.2m
19
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.5

Overcame a poor shooting night by weaponizing his downhill gravity to collapse the defense and spray passes to open shooters. His relentless pace and high-motor transition pushes masked the inefficiency of his individual finishing.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 27.2m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

An absolute deep-freeze from the perimeter completely collapsed the team's offensive spacing. Continuing to fire away despite the slump led to empty possessions and transition run-outs for the opponent, resulting in a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jock Landale 25.9m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Fumbled several interior catches and missed makeable looks around the basket, stalling out halfcourt sets. His sturdy screening and positional rebounding provided a solid foundation, but the lack of finishing touch ultimately dragged down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +9.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Attacking mismatches with decisive moves allowed him to score efficiently without forcing the issue. While his rebounding presence was virtually nonexistent for a frontline anchor, his rim deterrence and timely help rotations preserved a positive margin.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.2

Clanking open spot-up looks short-circuited the halfcourt offense and neutralized his floor-spacing value. He tried to buy back his worth through relentless point-of-attack defense and deflections, but the sheer volume of bricked jumpers tipped the scales into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 24.6m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.0

Put on an absolute masterclass in doing the dirty work, generating massive value without demanding the ball. His elite off-ball event creation—highlighted by perfectly timed digs and passing lane interceptions—completely suffocated the opposing second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +49.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
27
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+30.3

Caught absolute fire from beyond the arc, punishing every late closeout with flawless perimeter execution. This unexpected scoring explosion completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and single-handedly blew the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.5%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +66.4
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +23.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Santi Aldama 20.9m
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Anchored the frontcourt with disciplined verticality and excellent defensive rebounding fundamentals. By securing the glass and avoiding cheap fouls, he quietly stabilized the interior defense and ensured a positive differential during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +7.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Javon Small 20.8m
16
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.7

Sliced through the defense with surgical precision, capitalizing on nearly every look he took. His ability to toggle seamlessly between knocking down spot-up threes and orchestrating the offense completely overwhelmed his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 15.6m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Found some rhythm from the perimeter, but his impact was muted by a lack of physical engagement off the ball. Giving up ground on defensive switches and failing to win 50/50 balls ultimately bled away the value of his shot-making.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +40.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Benched almost immediately, completely neutralizing his usual dynamic scoring punch. A blown defensive assignment during his fleeting time on the court was the only notable mark he left on the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Saw the floor only for the final sequences and failed to register a single positive action. The negative rating reflects a disjointed garbage-time lineup that leaked points in transition before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

A bizarrely short stint completely derailed his recent momentum as a high-efficiency scorer. He managed to grab a couple of loose balls in traffic, but rushing a perimeter look in limited action kept his brief appearance in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Aaron Nesmith 31.2m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Perimeter marksmanship kept his offensive baseline high, but a lack of secondary playmaking limited his overall footprint. The negative final rating stems from defensive bleed and an inability to disrupt the opponent's flow during his extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
26
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.5

Relentless downhill attacking and pristine shot selection fueled a massive offensive spike above his recent baseline. He didn't need to rely on hustle stats to dominate, as his sheer scoring gravity bent the defense and consistently created high-value looks.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +22.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 25.8m
13
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.2

Settling for outside jumpers dragged his scoring production well below his recent averages. However, he salvaged a positive overall rating by leaning into his role as a connector and generating crucial extra possessions through high-level hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ben Sheppard 24.3m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.6

Thrived as a low-usage glue guy by executing defensive rotations and securing loose balls. His steady two-way reliability kept the second unit stable, proving that high-energy perimeter containment can drive winning basketball without high shot volume.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -48.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S James Wiseman 19.9m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Operated entirely on the periphery of the offense, failing to command touches or leverage his size inside. Despite decent positional defense, his inability to anchor the glass or punish mismatches resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
RayJ Dennis 27.9m
7
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-14.8

Disastrous shot selection and an inability to keep his man in front of him cratered his overall value. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock derailed the offensive rhythm and left the transition defense highly vulnerable.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -6.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

A sudden and severe regression in finishing touch ruined what had been a highly efficient stretch of games. While he remained engaged defensively and fought on the glass, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his team into a deep hole.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 23.1%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Obi Toppin 25.6m
13
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Straying from his usual high-percentage interior diet to launch contested perimeter looks tanked his offensive efficiency. A lack of meaningful rim protection further compounded the issue, allowing opponents to capitalize during his frontcourt shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +8.5
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Uncharacteristic struggles around the basket broke a remarkable streak of hyper-efficient interior finishing. He compensated for the missed bunnies by imposing his will athletically, using active hands and quick second jumps to secure a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jay Huff 9.9m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Starved for touches in a limited rotation role, his usual scoring punch completely evaporated. He managed to keep his head above water strictly through disciplined drop coverage and verticality at the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Failing to anchor the defensive glass as a true big man severely limited his utility during a brief rotation window. He offered some resistance in the paint defensively, but the lack of rebounding allowed second-chance opportunities that kept his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Relegated to a brief cameo appearance, he failed to register any meaningful offensive actions. A quick pair of missed defensive assignments during his short stint accounted for the negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
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