Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 219 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Giddey 9/21 -2.0
Vučević Hard 8/17 +3.5
White Hard 5/14 -0.5
Buzelis 7/13 +1.6
Dosunmu Hard 6/10 +3.9
Smith Hard 3/8 -0.2
Huerter 2/8 -5.1
Okoro 2/7 -3.2
Phillips 4/5 +4.3
Williams Hard 3/5 +3.1

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Markkanen Hard 15/33 +2.5
George Hard 10/27 -3.1
Sensabaugh Hard 5/9 +5.4
Love Hard 3/8 -0.7
Filipowski 4/7 +0.3
Mykhailiuk Hard 4/6 +4.0
Collier 4/6 +2.6
Nurkić 2/6 -2.8
Bailey Hard 2/5 +0.5
Williams 0/4 -4.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
UTA
49/108 Field Goals 49/111
45.4% Field Goal % 44.1%
19/50 3-Pointers 18/49
38.0% 3-Point % 36.7%
30/32 Free Throws 34/41
93.8% Free Throw % 82.9%
60.2% True Shooting % 58.1%
71 Total Rebounds 61
12 Offensive 12
48 Defensive 41
38 Assists 29
2.24 Assist/TO Ratio 3.22
17 Turnovers 9
7 Steals 13
10 Blocks 6
29 Fouls 28
54 Points in Paint 52
18 Fast Break Pts 16
13 Points off TOs 20
20 Second Chance Pts 17
71 Bench Points 50
15 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Lauri Markkanen
47 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 46.4 MIN
+37.13
2
Keyonte George
33 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 44.0 MIN
+22.54
3
Josh Giddey
26 PTS · 13 REB · 13 AST · 42.3 MIN
+20.67
4
Coby White
27 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 30.3 MIN
+18.89
5
Nikola Vučević
21 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 41.4 MIN
+18.54
6
Brice Sensabaugh
16 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 27.8 MIN
+17.09
7
Matas Buzelis
18 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 33.2 MIN
+15.85
8
Isaiah Collier
16 PTS · 4 REB · 9 AST · 36.5 MIN
+13.63
9
Jusuf Nurkić
5 PTS · 14 REB · 5 AST · 38.0 MIN
+13.22
10
Kevin Love
10 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 18.4 MIN
+10.98
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q6 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 147–150
Q6 0:00 MISS N. Vučević 28' 3PT 147–150
Q6 0:02 K. George 27' 3PT (33 PTS) (I. Collier 9 AST) 147–150
Q6 0:08 C. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (27 PTS) 147–147
Q6 0:08 C. White Free Throw 1 of 2 (26 PTS) 146–147
Q6 0:08 S. Mykhailiuk shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (White 2 FT) 145–147
Q6 0:20 J. Giddey REBOUND (Off:2 Def:11) 145–147
Q6 0:21 MISS J. Nurkić Free Throw 2 of 2 145–147
Q6 0:21 J. Nurkić Free Throw 1 of 2 (5 PTS) 145–147
Q6 0:21 I. Okoro loose ball personal FOUL (4 PF) (Nurkić 2 FT) 145–146
Q6 0:21 TEAM offensive REBOUND 145–146
Q6 0:23 MISS L. Markkanen 25' step back 3PT 145–146
Q6 0:45 N. Vučević 25' 3PT (21 PTS) (J. Giddey 13 AST) 145–146
Q6 0:48 K. Huerter REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 142–146
Q6 0:51 MISS C. White 27' pullup 3PT 142–146

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 46.4m
47
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+38.0

An overwhelming offensive workload and constant rim pressure shattered the opponent's defensive scheme. He relentlessly hunted mismatches in the mid-post, drawing multiple fouls that crippled the opposing frontcourt. Even with a high volume of missed jumpers, his sheer gravity and defensive rebounding anchored the team's success.

Shooting
FG 15/33 (45.5%)
3PT 6/17 (35.3%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.4m
Scoring +33.0
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +9.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Keyonte George 44.0m
33
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.8

Shot-chucking and poor decision-making in transition squandered a massive usage rate, dragging his net impact into the red. He repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock, gifting the opponent long rebounds and fast-break opportunities. While his point-of-attack defense was surprisingly stout, the offensive inefficiency was too steep a price to pay.

Shooting
FG 10/27 (37.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.0m
Scoring +21.6
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +8.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jusuf Nurkić 38.0m
5
pts
14
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.7

Elite positional defense and dominant screen-setting salvaged a night where he was an absolute non-threat as a scorer. He completely walled off the paint, forcing guards into contested, low-percentage floaters. His ability to orchestrate dribble hand-offs kept the offense flowing even when his own defender abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 8.4%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +17.8
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 28.6m
10
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Complete non-participation on the glass and poor weak-side awareness tanked his overall value. Opponents relentlessly attacked his closeouts, forcing the defense into scramble mode on multiple possessions. The efficient spot-up shooting was entirely undone by his inability to finish defensive possessions with a rebound.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ace Bailey 10.4m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.4

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely derailed his brief stint on the floor. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts and struggled to navigate off-ball screens. The minor offensive contributions were immediately erased by his glaring rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.4

Sloppy ball security and telegraphing passes into tight windows led to live-ball turnovers that fueled the opponent's transition game. He consistently tried to force the issue in traffic rather than making the simple read, undermining his playmaking volume. The defensive effort was commendable, but careless mistakes with the ball dictated his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

Lethal floor-spacing and decisive catch-and-shoot execution warped the opposing defense and opened up driving lanes for everyone else. He punished late closeouts relentlessly, forcing the defense to abandon their help responsibilities. His active hands on the perimeter also disrupted several passing lanes, rounding out a highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Costly fouls and poor positioning in the pick-and-roll negated his solid work on the interior. He was frequently caught in no-man's land on drop coverage, surrendering easy lob passes or wide-open mid-range jumpers. The efficient finishing around the basket wasn't enough to offset the defensive breakdowns he caused.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +10.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-20.0

A complete offensive black hole, his inability to generate any threat allowed defenders to freely roam and double-team the primary ball-handlers. He looked hesitant on the catch, frequently passing up open looks only to drive into traffic and kill the spacing. The decent hustle metrics couldn't hide the fact that the team was essentially playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring -3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevin Love 18.4m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Veteran savvy on the defensive glass and timely outlet passes sparked several crucial transition sequences. He expertly utilized his body to seal off more athletic bigs, securing possessions and ending opponent threats. This fundamental rebounding clinic easily masked his struggles to find a rhythm from deep.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 42.3m
26
pts
13
reb
13
ast
Impact
+10.0

Outstanding defensive rebounding and disruptive length in the half-court fueled a strong positive impact despite a heavy diet of missed floaters. He dictated the tempo by turning defensive stops directly into transition opportunities, constantly pushing the pace. The sheer volume of his hustle plays effectively neutralized the inefficiency of his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.3m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +9.7
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 6
21
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Elite rebounding positioning and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly positive defensive and hustle profile. He consistently won the positioning battle in the paint, neutralizing second-chance opportunities for the opponent. His willingness to contest without fouling anchored the interior defense throughout his heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Isaac Okoro 40.4m
5
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

A massive negative impact score stems from a near-total absence of offensive gravity and costly empty possessions. His inability to punish sagging defenders allowed the opposition to constantly double other threats. The defensive metrics barely put a dent in the damage caused by his offensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 33.2m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Scoring efficiency kept his baseline high, but defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently forcing teammates into unfavorable help situations. The raw production masked a performance that gave back almost everything on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense -4.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kevin Huerter 32.5m
6
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Bricklaying from the perimeter severely handicapped the team's spacing and tanked his overall value. While he showed commendable effort on the glass to salvage some utility, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips was too much to overcome. Defenders completely abandoned him late in the shot clock, clogging driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Coby White 30.3m
27
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.3

Relentless rim pressure and an elite ability to draw contact generated a massive offensive rating despite poor shooting from the floor. He consistently forced the defense into rotation, creating high-value trips to the foul line that stabilized the offense. This aggressive downhill mentality completely offset the damage from his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 14/14 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Ayo Dosunmu 25.8m
18
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

A lack of defensive resistance and zero impact on the glass allowed opponents to feast when he was on the floor. While his shot selection was pristine, he was frequently targeted in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points on the other end. The efficient scoring simply couldn't outpace the defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jalen Smith 16.6m
8
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Controlling the defensive glass and altering shots around the rim drove a solid positive impact in limited action. He provided crucial rim protection during the second-quarter rotation, deterring several drives. The defensive anchoring easily outweighed his struggles to connect from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Invisible for long stretches, his inability to impact the game outside of spot-up shooting resulted in a net-negative stint. He failed to establish any physical presence on the interior, allowing smaller players to dictate the rebounding battle. A few timely closeouts weren't enough to justify his lack of offensive aggression.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Capitalized perfectly on defensive breakdowns, finding soft spots in the zone for high-percentage looks. His off-ball movement kept the defense honest during his brief time on the court. Despite getting lost on a few defensive rotations, his opportunistic scoring provided a valuable spark.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0