Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
TOR lead MEM lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MEM 2P — 3P —
TOR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jackson Jr. 8/15 +1.8
Aldama 5/14 -2.9
Caldwell-Pope Hard 3/13 -4.9
Wells 3/11 -4.3
Coward Open 5/9 -1.0
Landale 6/8 +4.9
Williams Jr. Hard 5/7 +5.0
Spencer Hard 1/7 -4.3
Prosper Open 2/3 +0.1

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 10/19 +0.1
Barnes 8/19 -1.8
Ingram 10/15 +5.9
Murray-Boyles Open 7/14 -3.1
Dick Hard 3/6 +1.2
Quickley Hard 2/5 +1.4
Shead Hard 3/4 +4.1
Agbaji 2/4 -1.0
Walter Hard 0/2 -1.8
Mamukelashvili Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MEM
TOR
38/87 Field Goals 45/89
43.7% Field Goal % 50.6%
11/35 3-Pointers 11/37
31.4% 3-Point % 29.7%
17/20 Free Throws 16/20
85.0% Free Throw % 80.0%
54.3% True Shooting % 59.8%
46 Total Rebounds 55
11 Offensive 15
30 Defensive 34
24 Assists 32
1.85 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
11 Turnovers 15
6 Steals 5
0 Blocks 7
18 Fouls 23
54 Points in Paint 58
11 Fast Break Pts 25
16 Points off TOs 10
15 Second Chance Pts 22
47 Bench Points 21
2 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Scottie Barnes
19 PTS · 12 REB · 8 AST · 32.3 MIN
+23.0
2
Collin Murray-Boyles
15 PTS · 9 REB · 5 AST · 31.1 MIN
+20.53
3
RJ Barrett
27 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 35.5 MIN
+17.77
4
Brandon Ingram
26 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 33.0 MIN
+15.85
5
Vince Williams Jr.
14 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 21.1 MIN
+15.57
6
Jock Landale
14 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 22.8 MIN
+13.52
7
Jaren Jackson Jr.
20 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 32.5 MIN
+11.72
8
Cedric Coward
12 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 29.3 MIN
+10.95
9
Olivier-Maxence Prosper
6 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 11.8 MIN
+8.99
10
Santi Aldama
15 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+8.91
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:07 TOR shot clock Team TURNOVER 104–117
Q4 0:21 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–117
Q4 0:24 MISS R. Barrett 26' 3PT 104–117
Q4 0:33 J. Wells personal FOUL (4 PF) 104–117
Q4 0:40 R. Barrett REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 104–117
Q4 0:43 MISS S. Aldama 25' 3PT 104–117
Q4 0:54 B. Ingram 26' 3PT (26 PTS) (C. Murray-Boyles 5 AST) 104–117
Q4 1:13 K. Caldwell-Pope Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 104–114
Q4 1:13 K. Caldwell-Pope Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 103–114
Q4 1:13 B. Ingram shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Caldwell-Pope 2 FT) 102–114
Q4 1:31 B. Ingram 8' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (23 PTS) (S. Barnes 8 AST) 102–114
Q4 1:46 S. Aldama cutting finger roll Layup (15 PTS) (C. Coward 5 AST) 102–112
Q4 1:55 S. Aldama REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 100–112
Q4 1:58 MISS R. Barrett 26' 3PT 100–112
Q4 2:13 C. Murray-Boyles REBOUND (Off:6 Def:3) 100–112

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

TOR Toronto Raptors
S RJ Barrett 35.5m
27
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.8

Bullied his way to the cup with relentless downhill pressure, forcing the defense into constant rotation. However, his tendency to ball-watch off the ball mitigated some of the massive offensive value he generated.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 33.0m
26
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.5

Systematically dismantled single coverage from the elbows, using his high release to render contests irrelevant. His methodical shot creation stabilized the halfcourt offense, though occasional defensive lapses in transition kept his overall impact from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +22.1
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Scottie Barnes 32.3m
19
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+16.4

Wreaked absolute havoc as a free safety, blowing up passing lanes and erasing attempts at the rim to drive an elite defensive rating. Even with a streaky shooting night, his sheer physical dominance on the glass dictated the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +12.3
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to navigate ball screens defensively, frequently dying on picks and exposing the backline. His low-volume offensive output couldn't compensate for the structural breakdowns he caused on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.1

Completely neutralized the interior with textbook verticality and switchability onto smaller guards. His relentless motor generated numerous second-chance opportunities, cementing his status as the most impactful two-way presence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +10.5
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Gradey Dick 19.9m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Showed flashes of gravity by relocating well along the perimeter, pulling defenders out of the paint. A few rushed closeouts on defense and minor rotational delays ultimately dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 16.2m
9
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.1

Injected immediate pace into the second unit, orchestrating the offense with crisp, on-time deliveries. His ability to hit the open man perfectly in stride punished defensive scrambles and elevated his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 16.0m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Provided solid energy in transition but failed to make a dent in the halfcourt. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which bogged down Toronto's spacing and tanked his offensive utility.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, biting on multiple pump fakes that compromised the defensive shell. Firing blanks on his few offensive touches only compounded a rough rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.7

Played a largely connective role, executing dribble hand-offs without looking at the rim. His reluctance to challenge the defense allowed his primary defender to roam freely and disrupt adjacent actions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Barely broke a sweat during a brief garbage-time cameo. Got caught out of position on one defensive rotation before the final horn sounded.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +70.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
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
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
20
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.3

Anchored the interior with timely weak-side rotations that stifled opponent rim attempts. His efficiency inside the arc kept the offense afloat, though a few late-clock forced jumpers marginally capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +9.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Impact cratered due to a barrage of contested midrange pull-ups that bailed out the defense. While his relentless off-ball chasing generated high hustle metrics, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cam Spencer 26.4m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.0

Provided excellent point-of-attack resistance on the perimeter, navigating screens beautifully to disrupt opposing flow. However, his total inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off, severely clogging the halfcourt offense.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 26.2m
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Offensive rhythm completely stalled out due to heavily contested drives into traffic that resulted in wasted possessions. The lack of defensive playmaking couldn't offset the damage done by his poor shot profile.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jock Landale 22.8m
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Capitalized perfectly on pick-and-pop opportunities to stretch the floor and punish drop coverage. His disciplined verticality in the paint and flawless shot selection resulted in a highly efficient, high-impact stint.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentless activity on the offensive glass and in passing lanes fueled a massive hustle score. He consistently made the right extra pass against rotating defenses, keeping the offensive machinery humming smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 28.4m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Settled far too often for contested above-the-break looks rather than attacking closeouts. While his weak-side rim protection offered some value, the volume of wasted offensive trips kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.0

Delivered a masterclass in two-way efficiency by locking down his primary assignment and punishing over-helps with timely cuts. His selective, high-quality shot profile ensured almost zero wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Maximized a short leash by blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. His decisive, straight-line drives against shifting defenses created immediate advantages.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

Floated through his brief rotation without leaving any tangible imprint on the offensive end. Allowed opposing guards to turn the corner too easily, resulting in a negative defensive ripple effect.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Operated strictly as a passive floor-spacer, refusing to challenge closeouts or initiate sets. The lack of aggression rendered Memphis effectively four-on-five during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0