Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 12/20 +7.1
Stewart 9/18 -0.1
Duren Open 5/11 -3.4
Robinson Hard 4/10 +0.3
Holland II 5/8 +1.8
Thompson 4/7 +0.1
LeVert Hard 2/4 +0.4
Green Hard 1/4 -1.5
Reed Hard 0/1 -0.9

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Morant 5/16 -6.3
Jackson Jr. Hard 8/14 +5.8
Wells 2/14 -11.1
Coward 5/9 +2.4
Aldama Hard 5/9 +2.2
Landale 5/9 +1.1
Spencer Hard 4/6 +6.1
Caldwell-Pope Hard 0/4 -4.5
Bassey 1/3 -1.1
Williams Jr. Hard 0/3 -3.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
MEM
42/83 Field Goals 35/87
50.6% Field Goal % 40.2%
10/31 3-Pointers 14/41
32.3% 3-Point % 34.1%
20/29 Free Throws 22/25
69.0% Free Throw % 88.0%
59.5% True Shooting % 54.1%
52 Total Rebounds 54
10 Offensive 18
33 Defensive 31
23 Assists 25
1.64 Assist/TO Ratio 1.25
12 Turnovers 20
11 Steals 8
9 Blocks 5
21 Fouls 22
58 Points in Paint 30
18 Fast Break Pts 13
33 Points off TOs 8
15 Second Chance Pts 25
21 Bench Points 48
21 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Isaiah Stewart
26 PTS · 14 REB · 4 AST · 34.0 MIN
+30.32
2
Cade Cunningham
33 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 38.9 MIN
+19.26
3
Jock Landale
13 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 29.6 MIN
+16.72
4
Jaren Jackson Jr.
21 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 31.1 MIN
+14.79
5
Jalen Duren
14 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 34.4 MIN
+14.19
6
Ronald Holland II
14 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 19.9 MIN
+10.42
7
Ausar Thompson
9 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 26.5 MIN
+9.07
8
Cedric Coward
17 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 30.6 MIN
+7.76
9
Charles Bassey
3 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 15.2 MIN
+7.75
10
Cam Spencer
13 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 14.6 MIN
+7.5
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:18 J. Green REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 114–106
Q4 0:21 MISS J. Jackson Jr. 3PT 114–106
Q4 0:28 I. Stewart Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 114–106
Q4 0:28 I. Stewart Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 113–106
Q4 0:28 C. Coward take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Stewart 2 FT) 112–106
Q4 0:28 I. Stewart REBOUND (Off:5 Def:9) 112–106
Q4 0:30 MISS A. Thompson Free Throw 2 of 2 112–106
Q4 0:30 TEAM offensive REBOUND 112–106
Q4 0:30 MISS A. Thompson Free Throw 1 of 2 112–106
Q4 0:30 J. Landale personal FOUL (3 PF) (Thompson 2 FT) 112–106
Q4 0:36 C. Spencer 26' 3PT (13 PTS) (C. Coward 2 AST) 112–106
Q4 0:38 C. Cunningham 25' 3PT (33 PTS) 112–103
Q4 1:00 A. Thompson STEAL (4 STL) 109–103
Q4 1:00 J. Morant lost ball TURNOVER (5 TO) 109–103
Q4 1:06 C. Cunningham 14' fadeaway Jump Shot (30 PTS) 109–103

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

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Ja Morant 35.0m
18
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.2

A severe negative impact (-10.2) was driven by highly inefficient isolation attacks and forced attempts at the rim. Despite racking up raw counting stats, his inability to convert in traffic led to run-outs that heavily penalized his overall rating. The offense simply bogged down whenever he tried to play hero ball against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

High-volume shot-making carried his positive impact (+2.5), masking a surprisingly subpar defensive showing (-0.7). He successfully stretched the floor and punished mismatches on the perimeter, though he struggled to anchor the paint with his usual authority. The offensive firepower ultimately outweighed the defensive lapses to keep him in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +16.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense -5.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jock Landale 29.6m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.1

A phenomenal two-way effort resulted in a highly impactful performance (+8.6) driven by elite rim protection (+8.5) and relentless activity (+6.1 Hustle). He consistently beat his man to loose balls and altered shots at the basket, dictating the physical tone of the game. This blue-collar dominance stabilized the interior on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +8.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

A disastrous offensive showing cratered his overall impact (-7.0) despite putting up strong defensive resistance (+5.8). Forcing contested jumpers and failing to connect from deep allowed the opposition to completely ignore him on the perimeter. His inability to stretch the floor severely handicapped the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 21.3m
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

Abysmal shot selection and a barrage of missed perimeter looks dragged his impact firmly into the negative (-4.9). While he tried to compensate with high-energy hustle plays (+5.3), clanking away on high volume consistently killed offensive momentum and sparked transition opportunities for the opponent. The sheer number of empty possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/14 (14.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring -5.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Tremendous hustle (+7.5) and timely shot-making kept his head above water (+1.1) despite offering zero defensive resistance. He thrived by finding soft spots in the zone and extending possessions with sheer effort. This scrappy offensive execution barely offset his struggles to stay in front of his assignment on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Santi Aldama 22.7m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

A negative overall impact (-2.2) stemmed from defensive passivity and an inability to secure critical stops. While he provided decent spacing and activity on offense, he was routinely targeted in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the other end. The failure to contain dribble penetration ultimately negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Dominated the glass in limited minutes, using his physicality to generate second-chance opportunities and a solid positive rating (+3.2). He embraced a low-maintenance role, focusing entirely on setting hard screens and altering shots at the rim (+3.6 Def). This disciplined interior presence perfectly stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +11.7
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Played to a perfectly neutral impact (0.0) by balancing offensive invisibility with highly disruptive perimeter defense (+4.4). He completely locked down his primary assignment but failed to make the defense pay for leaving him open. It was a classic defensive specialist stint that neither hurt nor helped the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Spencer 14.6m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Blistering perimeter efficiency forced the defense to stretch, driving a highly productive short-burst impact (+2.0). He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating flawlessly around the arc, punishing late closeouts. This lethal floor-spacing dynamic instantly opened up driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
DET Detroit Pistons
S Duncan Robinson 39.8m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A brutal overall impact (-14.2) stemmed directly from poor perimeter shot selection and an inability to stretch the defense effectively. Clanking away from deep allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, neutralizing his otherwise passable box metrics. His failure to punish closeouts ultimately collapsed the floor spacing during his massive minute load.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 38.9m
33
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+19.1

Massive offensive production was almost entirely wiped out by defensive lapses and low-energy plays, resulting in a surprisingly marginal overall impact (+1.7). While he orchestrated the offense beautifully, a lack of resistance on the other end allowed opponents to trade baskets effortlessly. His heavy usage kept the offense afloat, but the two-way disparity capped his actual value.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +25.7
Creation +5.3
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 34.4m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Even with his offensive usage dipping significantly from his recent tear, he remained a strong net positive (+6.9) by pivoting to a defensive anchor role (+10.1). He altered shots around the rim and controlled the glass to ensure his team maintained the advantage. It was a mature showing of finding ways to contribute when the primary game plan isn't clicking.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +10.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Isaiah Stewart 34.0m
26
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+28.7

A massive positive impact (+21.1) was fueled by dominant interior presence and high-value shot creation. His ability to anchor the paint defensively (+9.9) while consistently generating high-quality looks inside overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. This two-way physical dominance set the tone for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +19.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +16.8
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 26.5m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Elite defensive metrics (+11.3) and relentless energy (+10.6 Hustle) completely drove his positive impact despite a quiet offensive night. He served as a premier disruptor on the perimeter, creating havoc that doesn't show up in traditional scoring columns. His ability to tilt the floor without demanding the ball defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/6 (16.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +9.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Solid defensive metrics (+4.5) couldn't salvage a negative overall rating (-3.4) caused by a complete lack of offensive rhythm. Missed perimeter looks and stagnant off-ball movement allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. His inability to punish defensive rotations ultimately stalled out several key possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Caris LeVert 20.2m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Offensive invisibility dragged his overall rating deeply into the red (-5.4) despite some commendable defensive effort (+4.2). He failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure, settling for empty possessions that stalled the second unit's momentum. The inability to capitalize on his usual scoring spots made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.2

An unexpected offensive surge translated into a solid positive impact (+4.0) during his rotation minutes. He attacked the basket with sudden confidence, exploiting defensive gaps that completely caught the opponent off guard. This aggressive downhill mentality provided a crucial spark when the primary scorers rested.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 5.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Made the most of a brief cameo by providing instant defensive resistance (+4.2) and energetic rotations. Even without attempting a shot, his quick closeouts and paint deterrence swung the momentum slightly in his team's favor (+2.5). He perfectly executed the role of a short-burst energy big.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0