Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Bailey Hard 5/13 -1.0
Markkanen 5/13 -3.4
George 5/12 -1.6
Clayton Jr. 4/9 +0.9
Mykhailiuk Hard 1/8 -5.6
Filipowski 2/7 -3.4
Sensabaugh 3/6 +0.8
Collier 4/5 +3.4
Love Hard 2/5 +0.6
Nurkić Open 2/5 -2.7

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 9/17 +7.0
Clarkson 5/13 -1.2
McBride Hard 7/11 +9.7
Towns Hard 5/11 +3.2
Anunoby 4/8 -1.4
Bridges Open 5/7 +1.3
Yabusele 5/6 +3.8
Kolek Hard 3/6 +0.8
Hart 3/6 -0.9
Robinson Open 2/2 +1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
NYK
35/87 Field Goals 51/91
40.2% Field Goal % 56.0%
15/42 3-Pointers 21/42
35.7% 3-Point % 50.0%
27/35 Free Throws 23/26
77.1% Free Throw % 88.5%
54.7% True Shooting % 71.3%
49 Total Rebounds 55
10 Offensive 10
27 Defensive 36
23 Assists 30
1.92 Assist/TO Ratio 2.31
12 Turnovers 12
8 Steals 9
1 Blocks 2
18 Fouls 22
36 Points in Paint 54
12 Fast Break Pts 11
20 Points off TOs 9
14 Second Chance Pts 19
56 Bench Points 66
0 Largest Lead 41
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Brunson
33 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 30.9 MIN
+27.56
2
Miles McBride
22 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 21.7 MIN
+19.14
3
Karl-Anthony Towns
18 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 22.3 MIN
+18.38
4
Lauri Markkanen
18 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 26.4 MIN
+17.96
5
Isaiah Collier
13 PTS · 0 REB · 7 AST · 23.7 MIN
+14.72
6
Mitchell Robinson
4 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 16.0 MIN
+12.29
7
Kyle Filipowski
10 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 30.0 MIN
+11.7
8
Jordan Clarkson
16 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 31.0 MIN
+11.54
9
Mikal Bridges
10 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 19.9 MIN
+11.28
10
Keyonte George
18 PTS · 0 REB · 4 AST · 27.8 MIN
+10.43
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 NYK shot clock Team TURNOVER 112–146
Q4 0:26 I. Collier 10' driving floating Jump Shot (13 PTS) 112–146
Q4 0:37 T. Kolek 12' driving floating Jump Shot (7 PTS) 110–146
Q4 0:44 J. Clarkson REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 110–144
Q4 0:48 MISS A. Bailey 20' Jump Shot 110–144
Q4 0:56 G. Yabusele driving finger roll Layup (11 PTS) (J. Clarkson 5 AST) 110–144
Q4 1:06 I. Collier Free Throw 2 of 2 (11 PTS) 110–142
Q4 1:06 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–142
Q4 1:06 MISS I. Collier Free Throw 1 of 2 109–142
Q4 1:06 A. Hukporti shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Collier 2 FT) 109–142
Q4 1:11 G. Yabusele driving Layup (9 PTS) 109–142
Q4 1:17 W. Clayton Jr. personal FOUL (3 PF) 109–140
Q4 1:17 G. Yabusele REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 109–140
Q4 1:17 MISS W. Clayton Jr. 27' 3PT 109–140
Q4 1:31 J. Clarkson 6' putback Layup (16 PTS) 109–140

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

NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 30.9m
33
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+26.2

An absolute masterclass in offensive creation fueled a massive +17.5 impact score. He punished drop coverage relentlessly with a barrage of pull-up threes, breaking the game open while maintaining excellent efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +55.2
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +27.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +7.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Hart 27.8m
8
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.8

Elite defensive metrics (+5.2) were undone by a complete lack of perimeter gravity. Defenses dared him to shoot, and his inability to connect from deep bogged down the half-court spacing enough to drag his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +60.2
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 22.7m
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Uncharacteristically low defensive engagement (+0.8) and a dip in scoring aggression led to a surprisingly poor net rating. He faded into the background for long stretches, failing to leave his usual physical imprint on the wings.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.3

Dominated the game through lethal floor-spacing and surprisingly stout interior defense (+5.8). His ability to stretch the floor from the center position completely warped the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 19.9m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.6

Surgical shot selection inside the arc generated a steady, positive impact. While the three-point shot wasn't falling, his mistake-free execution and timely cuts kept the offense humming smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +50.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.1

Despite doubling his recent scoring average, erratic shot selection capped his overall effectiveness. The volume-heavy approach led to empty possessions that offset his surprisingly solid defensive metrics (+3.6).

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

A volcanic eruption from beyond the arc completely flipped his recent slump and devastated the opposing bench. His catch-and-shoot gravity warped the defensive rotations, acting as the primary catalyst for the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Offensive touches were minimal, but he completely controlled the paint to generate a massive defensive impact (+8.7). His rim deterrence and relentless screen-setting provided immense hidden value that the box score barely captured.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +41.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 14.3m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Struggled to dictate the tempo during his minutes, leading to a negative net rating. Even with a slight uptick in scoring efficiency compared to recent games, his inability to consistently break down the defense stalled the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Operated strictly on the periphery of the offense, resulting in a muted overall impact. Solid defensive rotations kept him near neutral, but a severe lack of offensive aggression prevented him from moving the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Defensive lapses (-1.1) in the frontcourt negated a perfectly efficient shooting stint. He gave up too much ground in the pick-and-roll, allowing easy looks that quickly erased his minor offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Punished mismatches inside to generate a highly efficient scoring punch off the bench. His physical interior finishes broke a recent shooting slump and easily outweighed his minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Ace Bailey 34.0m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Heavy minutes amplified the damage of a highly inefficient shooting night. He forced too many contested looks from the perimeter, dragging down his overall effectiveness despite showing flashes of defensive engagement.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Keyonte George 27.8m
18
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Playmaking value and defensive activity nearly balanced out a slightly negative overall score. His overall impact hovered around neutral because the offensive creation was offset by empty possessions and missed opportunities inside the arc.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -54.1
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Lauri Markkanen 26.4m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.5

Solid overall positive impact driven by a high-volume offensive burden. Despite some inefficiency from the floor, his ability to generate secondary contributions through hustle and steady defense kept his net rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -55.3
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +10.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 19.5m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Defensive anchoring (+5.8) wasn't enough to salvage a negative overall impact score. A lack of offensive assertiveness and low usage severely limited his ability to influence the game on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 18.6m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.6

A massive regression to the mean cratered his overall impact after a scorching previous outing. Brutal perimeter variance completely erased any value he provided through active hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

An abrupt end to his highly efficient five-game stretch tanked his offensive value. While his defensive metrics remained elite (+5.5), forcing uncharacteristic shots from the perimeter dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +9.2
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.8

High-level offensive orchestration drove a strong positive impact. He manipulated the defense perfectly, pairing near-flawless shooting efficiency with excellent primary playmaking to elevate the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

Improved perimeter efficiency wasn't enough to overcome quiet stretches off the ball. Despite finding his stroke from deep, a lack of supplementary hustle or defensive disruption kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 16.5m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Provided a stabilizing veteran presence in limited minutes. Efficient floor-spacing and active hustle plays allowed him to post a slightly positive net impact during his short stints.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -57.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

A sharp drop-off in scoring volume from his recent hot streak resulted in a perfectly neutral impact score. He struggled to find his usual rhythm offensively, though decent hustle metrics prevented him from slipping into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -69.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Capitalized on a brief rotation opportunity with a highly efficient offensive burst that far exceeded his recent averages. Smart positional defense and mistake-free execution maximized his value in just a single quarter of action.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0