Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead PHX lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
PHX 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 214 attempts

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Booker Hard 11/26 +2.2
Allen Hard 7/19 -0.6
O'Neale Hard 6/17 -1.2
Williams Open 9/14 +1.9
Gillespie Hard 5/13 +1.2
Richards Open 2/6 -3.9
Dunn 3/4 +2.7
Livers Hard 1/3 -0.4
Ighodaro 1/3 -0.9
Hayes-Davis Hard 0/1 -1.1

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Markkanen Hard 14/32 +2.2
George Hard 8/18 +0.3
Kessler Open 9/12 +4.6
Bailey Hard 2/9 -2.6
Mykhailiuk Hard 4/8 +1.4
Clayton Jr. Hard 2/7 -1.1
Filipowski Hard 1/7 -4.1
Nurkić 3/6 -0.8
Sensabaugh Hard 1/5 -3.4
Hendricks 0/4 -4.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
PHX
UTA
45/106 Field Goals 44/108
42.5% Field Goal % 40.7%
20/55 3-Pointers 16/49
36.4% 3-Point % 32.7%
24/31 Free Throws 34/36
77.4% Free Throw % 94.4%
56.0% True Shooting % 55.7%
62 Total Rebounds 74
18 Offensive 28
30 Defensive 36
37 Assists 27
2.64 Assist/TO Ratio 1.42
14 Turnovers 18
13 Steals 8
8 Blocks 4
29 Fouls 27
50 Points in Paint 52
24 Fast Break Pts 11
19 Points off TOs 25
18 Second Chance Pts 33
51 Bench Points 22
4 Largest Lead 20
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Lauri Markkanen
51 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 45.0 MIN
+43.33
2
Mark Williams
25 PTS · 11 REB · 0 AST · 30.9 MIN
+29.55
3
Walker Kessler
25 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 35.3 MIN
+28.57
4
Devin Booker
34 PTS · 5 REB · 10 AST · 44.2 MIN
+20.07
5
Royce O'Neale
17 PTS · 13 REB · 7 AST · 46.1 MIN
+19.92
6
Svi Mykhailiuk
11 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 36.6 MIN
+16.92
7
Collin Gillespie
15 PTS · 3 REB · 13 AST · 32.0 MIN
+16.61
8
Keyonte George
26 PTS · 5 REB · 10 AST · 42.8 MIN
+14.78
9
Nick Richards
6 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 15.3 MIN
+9.93
10
Jusuf Nurkić
7 PTS · 13 REB · 2 AST · 17.6 MIN
+9.33
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q5 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 134–138
Q5 0:00 MISS D. Booker 28' 3PT 134–138
Q5 0:01 L. Markkanen Free Throw 2 of 2 (51 PTS) 134–138
Q5 0:01 L. Markkanen Free Throw 1 of 2 (50 PTS) 134–137
Q5 0:01 G. Allen personal FOUL (5 PF) (Markkanen 2 FT) 134–136
Q5 0:05 W. Kessler REBOUND (Off:8 Def:3) 134–136
Q5 0:08 MISS K. George 26' 3PT 134–136
Q5 0:30 K. George REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 134–136
Q5 0:33 MISS C. Gillespie 25' pullup 3PT 134–136
Q5 0:40 K. George 9' driving floating bank Jump Shot (26 PTS) 134–136
Q5 0:56 M. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 134–134
Q5 0:56 TEAM offensive REBOUND 133–134
Q5 0:56 MISS M. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 133–134
Q5 0:56 W. Clayton Jr. shooting personal FOUL (6 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 133–134
Q5 0:57 M. Williams REBOUND (Off:5 Def:6) 133–134

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

UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 45.0m
51
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+50.5

An overwhelming offensive workload fueled a massive box score rating, as he took over the game with sheer volume. While the sheer number of missed shots slightly capped his ceiling, his ability to draw defensive attention and score from all three levels dictated the entire game flow.

Shooting
FG 14/32 (43.8%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 17/17 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.6%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.0m
Scoring +37.7
Creation +4.4
Shot Making +9.5
Hustle +16.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keyonte George 42.8m
26
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+3.7

Poor shot selection from the perimeter severely dragged down an otherwise productive playmaking performance. The sheer volume of wasted three-point attempts negated his creation, turning a heavy offensive load into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.8m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 40.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Svi Mykhailiuk 36.6m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Thrived as a two-way connector, using excellent defensive positioning and high-energy hustle (+6.8) to anchor his positive rating. He picked his spots perfectly on offense, maintaining solid efficiency without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Walker Kessler 35.3m
25
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.2

Put on a masterclass in role execution by combining hyper-efficient interior finishing with elite rim deterrence. He maximized every touch around the basket while generating significant defensive value (+6.3) to drive a stellar overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +21.9
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +12.0
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 23.8%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
S Kyle Filipowski 20.2m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.3

An abrupt collapse in finishing efficiency destroyed his impact score, snapping a five-game streak of elite offensive production. He generated some marginal value through hustle plays, but the wasted possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-19.4

Bled value on both ends of the floor, combining poor perimeter shooting with highly exploitable defense (-2.1). He struggled to stay in front of his matchups, compounding the damage of his wasted offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -5.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Offensive invisibility doomed his overall rating despite putting together a respectable defensive shift (+3.6). Failing to convert a single field goal attempt created dead-end possessions that his rim protection couldn't fully offset.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring -3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Physicality and defensive anchoring (+7.2) kept him in the green during a brief but effective shift. He didn't demand the ball, instead generating value by controlling the paint and executing simple, high-percentage looks.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +15.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Ace Bailey 13.5m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.1

A stark regression in scoring efficiency crippled his value, as he routinely settled for contested looks that failed to drop. Defensive lapses only worsened the bleeding during a highly ineffective rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.1

Completely lost his shooting stroke, bricking every attempt from deep and cratering his usual offensive impact. The dramatic drop-off in scoring production left him with no way to justify his minutes, as his defensive contributions were negligible.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Royce O'Neale 46.1m
17
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.4

A massive defensive presence (+12.6) and relentless hustle kept his overall impact positive despite a heavy volume of missed shots. He broke out of his recent scoring slump by letting it fly from deep, providing crucial spacing even when overall efficiency dipped.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.1m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +16.5
Defense +7.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 4
S Devin Booker 44.2m
34
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+17.0

Elite offensive creation drove a massive box score footprint, though a barrage of missed field goals kept his final impact surprisingly grounded. He absorbed a massive usage rate, functioning as the primary engine while chipping in just enough defensively to stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 11/26 (42.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.2m
Scoring +22.4
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +7.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Grayson Allen 41.9m
23
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.2

Brutal perimeter efficiency tanked his net impact, as he squandered offensive possessions by forcing contested looks from beyond the arc. The scoring surge was entirely volume-driven, completely erasing the value of his solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ryan Dunn 17.1m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Defensive lapses pushed his overall impact into the red despite highly efficient shot selection in limited minutes. He capitalized on his few offensive touches but failed to generate enough disruption on the other end of the floor to stay positive.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -73.2
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Oso Ighodaro 13.3m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.8

A sudden drop in offensive involvement cratered his overall value, snapping a five-game streak of highly efficient finishing. Without his usual interior scoring rhythm, his minor defensive contributions weren't enough to salvage a heavily negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -48.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
3
reb
13
ast
Impact
+3.2

Defensive tenacity and constant hustle plays (+7.4) defined this performance, completely offsetting a wildly inefficient shooting night. He broke out of a recent slump by generating massive value as a disruptive playmaker rather than relying on his jumper.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
25
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+23.0

Dominated the painted area with a breakout offensive surge that more than doubled his recent scoring average. His highly efficient interior finishing paired beautifully with stout rim protection (+8.8 Def) to yield a towering net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +11.1
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Operated strictly as a defensive connector, using strong positioning (+6.9 Def) to balance out a nearly invisible offensive role. He broke a scoreless streak but ultimately washed out to a neutral impact due to a lack of overall volume.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
6
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Anchored the interior defense and cleaned the glass effectively enough to overcome a sluggish shooting night. His value stemmed entirely from physical paint presence and hustle (+3.3) rather than offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +10.8
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.1

Hemorrhaged value during a brief three-minute stint by failing to register a single positive play on either end. Empty offensive trips and slight defensive liabilities compounded quickly in his highly limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0