Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CLE lead MEM lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MEM 2P — 3P —
CLE 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 169 attempts

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jackson Jr. 6/23 -10.1
Aldama 5/9 +2.7
Williams Jr. Hard 3/9 -0.7
Coward Hard 3/8 -0.9
Wells 3/8 -1.7
Landale 2/8 -5.3
Edey Open 3/7 -2.9
Caldwell-Pope Open 2/4 -1.0
Spencer Hard 1/4 -1.4
Konchar 1/4 -2.8

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell Hard 10/21 +3.3
Mobley 7/16 +0.7
Merrill Hard 5/9 +2.0
Hunter Hard 4/8 +1.3
Allen Open 5/8 +0.1
Ball Hard 3/5 +4.7
Wade 2/4 -0.8
Porter Jr. Open 1/4 -2.4
Tomlin 1/4 -2.7
Nance Jr. Hard 0/2 -2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MEM
CLE
31/86 Field Goals 38/83
36.0% Field Goal % 45.8%
9/32 3-Pointers 13/40
28.1% 3-Point % 32.5%
29/40 Free Throws 19/29
72.5% Free Throw % 65.5%
48.3% True Shooting % 56.4%
57 Total Rebounds 64
11 Offensive 11
35 Defensive 38
21 Assists 24
1.40 Assist/TO Ratio 1.14
15 Turnovers 20
9 Steals 7
5 Blocks 9
25 Fouls 28
36 Points in Paint 40
11 Fast Break Pts 8
19 Points off TOs 17
16 Second Chance Pts 16
36 Bench Points 18
11 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Donovan Mitchell
30 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 32.9 MIN
+16.33
2
Evan Mobley
22 PTS · 13 REB · 4 AST · 35.3 MIN
+13.27
3
Zach Edey
13 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 24.7 MIN
+13.25
4
Santi Aldama
12 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 25.0 MIN
+12.0
5
Jarrett Allen
16 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 26.4 MIN
+10.91
6
Cedric Coward
10 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 24.5 MIN
+7.3
7
Lonzo Ball
9 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 22.0 MIN
+7.13
8
Jaren Jackson Jr.
26 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 32.7 MIN
+6.85
9
Sam Merrill
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 27.2 MIN
+6.57
10
Ja Morant
7 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 6.0 MIN
+6.31
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:04 CLE shot clock Team TURNOVER 100–108
Q4 0:26 D. Mitchell REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 100–108
Q4 0:29 MISS V. Williams Jr. 8' driving floating bank Shot 100–108
Q4 0:38 S. Merrill putback Layup (13 PTS) 100–108
Q4 0:38 S. Merrill REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 100–106
Q4 0:39 MISS E. Mobley 25' pullup 3PT 100–106
Q4 0:57 E. Mobley REBOUND (Off:3 Def:10) 100–106
Q4 1:00 E. Mobley BLOCK (4 BLK) 100–106
Q4 1:00 MISS Z. Edey cutting DUNK - blocked 100–106
Q4 1:12 C. Coward REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 100–106
Q4 1:12 MISS C. Coward 25' 3PT 100–106
Q4 1:27 Z. Edey STEAL (2 STL) 100–106
Q4 1:27 D. Mitchell bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 100–106
Q4 1:50 V. Williams Jr. bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (4 TO) 100–106
Q4 1:52 V. Williams Jr. REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 100–106

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

CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 35.3m
22
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.8

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance was driven by elite rim protection and a highly confident perimeter stroke. Stretching the floor effectively opened up driving lanes for the guards, while his switchability on defense completely stifled the opponent's pick-and-roll game.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +16.5
Defense -4.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 32.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 4
30
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.9

Relentless offensive aggression broke down the primary line of defense all night, yielding a massive box score impact (+13.5). Even with a high volume of missed threes, his ability to force switches and attack mismatches in isolation dictated the entire tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +20.2
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +7.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S De'Andre Hunter 32.1m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive lapses were the primary culprit for a heavily negative overall score despite decent offensive efficiency. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts and failed to provide adequate weak-side help, bleeding points on the margins.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 27.2m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Incredible off-ball movement and elite activity levels (+7.7 Hustle) defined a highly disruptive performance. His constant relocation exhausted his primary defenders, while a willingness to dive for loose balls created vital extra possessions for the offense.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 26.4m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

High-level screen-setting and vertical spacing generated massive offensive value (+11.2 Box). He consistently punished drop coverage with hard rolls to the rim, forcing deep defensive rotations that compromised the opponent's entire scheme.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Dean Wade 24.5m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Surviving a quiet offensive night required him to be an absolute rock on the defensive end (+5.7 Def). He perfectly executed the team's switching scheme, denying post-entry passes and blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs to keep his overall impact positive.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +43.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Lonzo Ball 22.0m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

Excellent defensive anticipation (+5.0 Def) was ultimately undermined by a lack of overall offensive volume and playmaking involvement. While he spaced the floor effectively, his reluctance to initiate the offense allowed the defense to rest whenever he was off the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +8.9
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Off-the-charts hustle (+7.4) and defensive switchability (+7.2) made him a massive net positive despite minimal scoring output. He completely changed the energy of the game by generating deflections, securing 50/50 balls, and blowing up opposing pick-and-rolls.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Forcing a few drives into heavy traffic resulted in empty possessions that tilted his overall impact slightly negative. However, his point-of-attack defense mitigated the damage, as he successfully navigated screens to heavily contest pull-up jumpers.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.1

A disastrously brief stint saw blown defensive assignments and rushed perimeter shots completely torpedo his value (-8.0 Total). He looked entirely out of sync with the second unit, giving up easy layups in transition before being quickly pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Failing to find the rhythm that fueled his recent hot streak, he rushed two deep looks early in the shot clock. These quick, empty possessions stalled the team's offensive momentum and resulted in a negative rating during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
26
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.3

Massive shot volume yielded diminishing returns, as a barrage of missed field goals fed directly into opponent transition opportunities. The sheer inefficiency dragged his overall value into the red, completely neutralizing his otherwise solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/23 (26.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 38.3%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zach Edey 24.7m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.8

Elite paint deterrence (+7.7 Def) defined this highly impactful stint as he completely walled off the restricted area. He generated immense value by altering interior looks and securing contested boards, proving you don't need high usage to dictate a game's flow.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 24.5m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Defensive activity (+4.4 Def) anchored his positive impact despite a slight dip from his usual offensive rhythm. His willingness to let it fly from deep maintained crucial floor spacing, while timely closeouts on the perimeter kept the opponent's guards in check.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 23.9m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Severe defensive bleeding cratered his overall rating, as he consistently struggled to stay in front of his perimeter assignments. Allowing straight-line drives compromised the entire defensive shell, rendering his modest offensive contributions irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja Morant 6.0m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

An extremely high-impact micro-stint was driven by perfect shot selection and immediate downhill pressure. He collapsed the defense on every possession during his brief run, generating elite offensive value before exiting the contest.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.1

A bizarre statistical profile emerged where elite defensive disruption (+8.3 Def) was entirely undone by offensive clunkiness. He was an absolute menace at the point of attack, yet forced too many contested looks in the half-court that stalled out possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Santi Aldama 25.0m
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.8

Excellent two-way balance fueled a highly productive shift, highlighted by his ability to seamlessly connect the offense. He consistently leveraged his length to disrupt passing lanes on the other end, resulting in a stellar defensive rating (+5.5).

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +8.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Despite strong hustle metrics, a lack of offensive aggression limited his overall footprint and resulted in a negative total impact. Passing up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 19.8m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

A sharp drop in scoring production and an inability to find open space dragged his rating into the negative. He struggled to shake his primary defender coming off screens, effectively rendering him a non-factor in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 19.4m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Poor touch around the basket severely limited his effectiveness and derailed the team's offensive momentum. While his defensive positioning remained sound, clanking multiple gimmes in the paint tanked his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
John Konchar 14.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

High-IQ defensive rotations (+4.8 Def) kept his head above water during a rough shooting night. Even with his jumper completely abandoning him, his knack for digging down on drives and recovering out to shooters provided crucial hidden value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0