Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead MEM lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MEM 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 194 attempts

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jackson Jr. 10/18 +4.4
Landale 8/15 +2.8
Wells Hard 5/13 -1.4
Caldwell-Pope Hard 4/12 -2.0
Coward 5/12 -4.5
Aldama 4/8 -1.4
Clarke Open 2/7 -3.9
Williams Jr. 1/6 -3.9
Prosper Open 3/4 +0.7
Mashack Hard 0/1 -1.1

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Randle 9/21 -5.6
DiVincenzo Hard 6/16 -1.2
Reid Hard 6/16 -2.0
McDaniels 4/11 -1.8
Hyland Hard 3/11 -2.5
Gobert Open 6/8 +1.0
Shannon Jr. 2/6 -1.0
Dillingham Open 2/5 -1.6
Clark 1/4 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MEM
MIN
42/96 Field Goals 39/98
43.8% Field Goal % 39.8%
11/34 3-Pointers 13/44
32.4% 3-Point % 29.5%
21/25 Free Throws 19/27
84.0% Free Throw % 70.4%
54.2% True Shooting % 50.1%
63 Total Rebounds 63
15 Offensive 16
39 Defensive 36
23 Assists 26
1.28 Assist/TO Ratio 1.44
18 Turnovers 18
10 Steals 11
4 Blocks 8
25 Fouls 25
50 Points in Paint 46
11 Fast Break Pts 8
20 Points off TOs 19
14 Second Chance Pts 16
44 Bench Points 29
8 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jock Landale
20 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 29.9 MIN
+26.42
2
Rudy Gobert
16 PTS · 16 REB · 4 AST · 35.5 MIN
+22.58
3
Jaren Jackson Jr.
28 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 33.5 MIN
+21.9
4
Donte DiVincenzo
19 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 37.3 MIN
+20.29
5
Jaylen Wells
17 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 31.4 MIN
+18.78
6
Julius Randle
21 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 35.3 MIN
+10.92
7
Jaden McDaniels
13 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 36.7 MIN
+9.27
8
Naz Reid
16 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 30.0 MIN
+6.84
9
Cedric Coward
13 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 27.2 MIN
+6.82
10
Bones Hyland
12 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 34.1 MIN
+4.08
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 116–110
Q4 0:00 MIN Heave 116–110
Q4 0:00 J. Wells bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 116–110
Q4 0:03 J. Wells STEAL (4 STL) 116–110
Q4 0:03 N. Reid bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 116–110
Q4 0:04 J. Wells Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 116–110
Q4 0:04 J. Wells Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 115–110
Q4 0:04 B. Hyland take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Wells 2 FT) 114–110
Q4 0:05 D. DiVincenzo 3PT fadeaway (19 PTS) (R. Gobert 4 AST) 114–110
Q4 0:15 J. Wells Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 114–107
Q4 0:15 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–107
Q4 0:15 MISS J. Wells Free Throw 1 of 2 113–107
Q4 0:15 B. Hyland take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Wells 2 FT) 113–107
Q4 0:16 J. Randle driving DUNK (21 PTS) (B. Hyland 5 AST) 113–107
Q4 0:24 K. Caldwell-Pope Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 113–105

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

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
19
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.0

Relentless perimeter aggression yielded a strong positive rating, even if his overall shooting efficiency was slightly pedestrian. His willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense thin, while his tenacious point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opponent's backcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +13.0
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 36.7m
13
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.1

High-level defensive rotations and solid playmaking were entirely undone by poor finishing in traffic. His inability to convert contested looks dragged down an otherwise well-rounded two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 35.5m
16
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.5

Absolute dominance in the painted area dictated the terms of the game on both ends of the floor. By combining flawless interior finishing with suffocating rim deterrence, he generated a massive positive swing whenever he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +18.4
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 44.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 4
S Julius Randle 35.3m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

A heavy diet of forced, contested jumpers snapped his recent streak of elite efficiency and nearly tanked his overall value. Surprisingly, it was his engaged weak-side defense and physical box-outs that kept his net impact barely above water.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bones Hyland 34.1m
12
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

Errant shot selection from beyond the arc severely handicapped the second-unit offense. Firing away early in the shot clock without rhythm allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, resulting in a steep negative shift during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 30.1m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Settling for heavily contested perimeter bombs rather than attacking the basket dragged his overall efficiency into the red. While he provided adequate weak-side help defense, his cold shooting stalled several crucial offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.1

Defensive liabilities at the point of attack caused his net impact to plummet during a short rotation. Opposing guards consistently blew past him, forcing the defense into rotation and bleeding points at an alarming rate.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -45.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Connecting on spot-up opportunities from deep provided a brief offensive flash, but his inability to finish through contact inside negated that value. He struggled to stay in front of his man defensively, leading to a marginal negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Rushed offensive execution in a brief stint off the bench prevented him from making a positive mark. He provided a slight spark with his on-ball pressure, but clanking open looks ultimately hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Santi Aldama 34.3m
8
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

A stark disconnect between his individual rebounding effort and his overall negative impact suggests he struggled within the flow of the team's rotations. His inability to stretch the floor from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag, bogging down the half-court offense during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +13.0
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
28
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+24.0

Elite two-way execution drove a massive positive impact, anchored by stifling rim protection and highly efficient shot selection. His ability to anchor the defense while punishing mismatches efficiently in the paint kept Memphis in control during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +14.3
Defense +1.7
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Jaylen Wells 31.4m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.3

A massive breakout performance was fueled by relentless point-of-attack defense and timely shot-making that far exceeded his recent baseline. His aggressive perimeter containment completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm, driving an elite two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 27.2m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Blanking from beyond the arc severely hampered his overall effectiveness, allowing the defense to pack the paint. While he maintained his usual scoring volume, the lack of perimeter gravity stalled the offensive flow and dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brandon Clarke 16.6m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Gritty hustle plays kept his impact in the green despite a rough shooting night around the basket. He salvaged a subpar finishing performance by generating extra possessions and maintaining high energy on the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 29.9m
20
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+24.7

Spacing the floor as a stretch big completely unlocked the offense and drove a team-high net rating. By punishing drop coverage with a barrage of perimeter makes, he forced the defense into impossible rotations while simultaneously anchoring the paint on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +12.7
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.4

Offensive invisibility and bricked finishes around the rim cratered his value during this rotation. Even a handful of solid hustle plays couldn't mask the damage caused by his inability to capitalize on open looks.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

Clanking a high volume of contested looks actively harmed the team's offensive efficiency. Without his usual lockdown defensive presence to compensate, his poor shot selection resulted in a steep negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

A sharp drop in usage from his recent hot streak limited his ability to influence the game. Despite converting the few looks he got, his passive approach allowed the defense to ignore him and focus on primary creators.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by a rushed perimeter attempt that killed an offensive possession. He failed to find the flow of the game during his short time on the floor, resulting in a quick negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -97.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0