Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 4/15 -8.1
Portis Hard 7/14 +1.3
Green Hard 7/13 +6.7
Rollins Hard 5/12 +0.1
Turner Hard 2/11 -4.9
Kuzma 5/10 -1.3
Harris Open 3/3 +3.1
Jackson Jr. Hard 1/2 +1.8
Coffey Hard 1/2 +0.1
Sims Open 1/2 -0.8

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jackson Jr. Hard 9/18 +2.8
Morant 6/11 +0.5
Caldwell-Pope Hard 6/10 +3.5
Aldama 4/10 -2.0
Coward 5/9 +2.6
Wells 4/8 +1.8
Jackson Hard 3/8 -2.0
Spencer Hard 4/6 +4.2
Koloko Open 2/3 +0.4
Small Hard 0/2 -1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIL
MEM
36/84 Field Goals 43/85
42.9% Field Goal % 50.6%
14/39 3-Pointers 13/34
35.9% 3-Point % 38.2%
18/24 Free Throws 26/32
75.0% Free Throw % 81.2%
55.0% True Shooting % 63.1%
53 Total Rebounds 51
15 Offensive 7
33 Defensive 35
18 Assists 28
0.82 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
22 Turnovers 13
11 Steals 12
2 Blocks 9
25 Fouls 19
28 Points in Paint 54
13 Fast Break Pts 26
15 Points off TOs 20
19 Second Chance Pts 18
30 Bench Points 43
10 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaren Jackson Jr.
24 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 30.1 MIN
+19.4
2
Cam Spencer
19 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 25.6 MIN
+18.88
3
AJ Green
20 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 34.8 MIN
+18.27
4
Cedric Coward
15 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 24.9 MIN
+16.91
5
Bobby Portis
15 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 34.9 MIN
+16.32
6
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
13 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 22.1 MIN
+13.33
7
Christian Koloko
4 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 28.4 MIN
+12.63
8
Kyle Kuzma
15 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 29.8 MIN
+11.28
9
Gary Harris
8 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 16.5 MIN
+11.16
10
Santi Aldama
12 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 30.0 MIN
+10.45
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–125
Q4 0:00 MISS A. Jackson Jr. 26' driving floating 3PT 104–125
Q4 0:02 MEM shot clock Team TURNOVER 104–125
Q4 0:26 C. Coward STEAL (1 STL) 104–125
Q4 0:26 C. Anthony bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 104–125
Q4 0:28 T. Antetokounmpo REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 104–125
Q4 0:30 MISS J. Small 11' floating Shot 104–125
Q4 0:51 P. Nance bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 104–125
Q4 1:00 C. Coward putback Layup (15 PTS) 104–125
Q4 1:00 C. Coward REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 104–123
Q4 1:03 MISS C. Koloko 10' Hook 104–123
Q4 1:10 TEAM offensive REBOUND 104–123
Q4 1:12 MISS J. Small 26' pullup 3PT 104–123
Q4 1:29 A. Jackson Jr. traveling TURNOVER (1 TO) 104–123
Q4 1:29 C. Anthony REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 104–123

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
24
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.1

Utter dominance as a weak-side rim protector completely suffocated the opponent's interior attack and drove a massive positive rating. He paired this elite defensive deterrence with relentless offensive rebounding, generating crucial second-chance opportunities. His ability to anchor the paint while maintaining high-volume offensive efficiency made him the undisputed engine of the lineup.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +6.6
Defense +1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
S Santi Aldama 30.0m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

Clanking several wide-open perimeter looks disrupted the half-court spacing and allowed the defense to pack the paint. While his positional defense remained steady, his inability to punish closeouts severely limited the ceiling of the offensive units he played with. Those wasted offensive trips ultimately tipped his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 29.3m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Despite finding a reliable stroke from the perimeter, poor transition defense and costly live-ball errors undermined his overall effectiveness. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy baskets that erased his offensive contributions. The resulting negative impact highlights how defensive lapses can completely overshadow efficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja Morant 25.3m
17
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.9

Careless ball security and forced interior passes fueled opponent fast breaks, severely undercutting his playmaking brilliance. Defenders sagged off him to clog the driving lanes, daring him to shoot and effectively stalling the half-court sets. The resulting empty possessions and transition points yielded a negative overall impact despite his high-level facilitation.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Cedric Coward 24.9m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Decisive shot-making and timely cuts to the basket fueled a highly productive offensive showing. He consistently punished defensive over-rotations, capitalizing on the gravity of his teammates to find soft spots on the perimeter. This sharp execution, combined with disciplined closeouts on the other end, resulted in a stellar two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Imposing verticality at the rim completely deterred drivers, serving as the backbone of a highly successful defensive stint. He embraced a low-usage offensive role, focusing entirely on setting bruising screens and clearing space for the guards. This unselfish, defense-first approach perfectly complemented the primary scorers and drove a solid positive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg +40.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Spencer 25.6m
19
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.0

Blistering perimeter efficiency completely broke the opponent's defensive shell, marking a massive turnaround from his recent shooting woes. He operated with incredible decisiveness off the catch, forcing defenders to respect his range and opening up secondary passing windows. This offensive eruption single-handedly swung the momentum during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 99.8%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Suffocating point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's primary actions, setting the tone for a highly impactful performance. He seamlessly transitioned from forcing turnovers to leaking out for easy transition buckets. This archetypal three-and-D execution provided massive stability to the perimeter rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +49.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
GG Jackson 21.9m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

High-energy closeouts and relentless pursuit of loose balls salvaged a night where his offensive touch completely abandoned him. He struggled to find his rhythm from deep, frequently short-arming open looks that he normally converts. However, his commitment to the dirty work on the defensive end ensured he remained a net positive despite the scoring drop-off.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Rushing his attempts during a frantic two-minute cameo resulted in empty possessions that handed momentum right back to the opposition. He failed to let the game come to him, jacking up contested looks rather than running the offensive sets. This brief bout of tunnel vision quickly tanked his impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +85.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Bobby Portis 34.9m
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.2

Stellar defensive positioning anchored his positive net rating, overcoming a sluggish perimeter shooting night. Persistent activity on the glass and high-level shot contests in the paint masked the fact that his outside jumper wasn't falling. This interior reliability continues to be a stabilizing force during frontcourt rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +15.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S AJ Green 34.8m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

Elite floor spacing and decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics drove a massive surge in offensive efficiency. Defenders were forced to overplay him on the perimeter, which naturally opened up cutting lanes for his teammates during key second-half stretches. This perimeter gravity maximized his value, easily offsetting a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.3

Errant shot selection and forced perimeter attempts severely damaged the offensive flow, resulting in a steep negative impact. He completely abandoned the efficient driving game that defined his previous outing, settling instead for contested jumpers early in the shot clock. Even a highly engaged defensive effort couldn't salvage the damage done by his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -15.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 7
S Kyle Kuzma 29.8m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Despite an uptick in scoring volume compared to his recent slump, empty possessions and a lack of secondary effort plays dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to generate perimeter gravity, allowing defenders to sag and clog the driving lanes. The negative rating ultimately reflects a performance where offensive aggression didn't translate to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -39.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Myles Turner 28.0m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

A barrage of missed interior looks completely tanked his overall value, stalling out the half-court offense. While he provided adequate rim protection and hustle, the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his defensive contributions. Opposing bigs successfully pushed him off his spots, forcing low-quality attempts that fueled transition opportunities the other way.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Rollins 23.4m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Inconsistent finishing at the rim and a few poorly timed defensive gambles slightly outweighed his playmaking flashes. He struggled to replicate his recent scoring tears, often forcing drives into heavy traffic rather than keeping the ball moving. Ultimately, the empty possessions in the mid-range suppressed what was otherwise a decent two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jericho Sims 18.6m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Complete offensive invisibility and poor pick-and-roll positioning allowed opponents to completely ignore him on the perimeter. His inability to act as a vertical threat clogged the paint, severely limiting driving angles for the primary ball-handlers. This lack of offensive gravity, combined with sluggish defensive rotations, resulted in a highly detrimental floor presence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gary Harris 16.5m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Flawless shot selection and opportunistic off-ball movement generated a highly efficient offensive stint. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, punishing late closeouts without ever forcing the issue. This disciplined approach, paired with sturdy point-of-attack defense, provided a massive boost during his limited rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.3%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

A brief, low-impact stint was marred slightly by passive off-ball positioning that allowed the defense to rest. While he didn't make any glaring mistakes, his inability to bend the defense or generate an advantage kept his overall rating slightly negative. He largely operated as a placeholder during a transitional stretch of the game.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Purely a cardio session at the end of the rotation, offering zero offensive utility or threat. His presence allowed the opposing defense to completely load up on the strong side of the floor. The slight negative rating stems entirely from being an offensive non-factor during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
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
Pete Nance 3.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

A remarkably empty shift where he failed to register any meaningful activity on either end of the floor. Opponents easily exploited his slow lateral rotations during a quick late-game sequence, dragging his impact score down. He vanished entirely from the offensive flow, a stark contrast to his recent aggressive outings.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Defensive miscommunications during a brief stint allowed easy penetration, negating the value of his lone perimeter conversion. He struggled to navigate screens effectively, putting the backline defense in constant rotation. The resulting defensive breakdowns ultimately pushed his short appearance into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Stagnant ball movement and a lack of dribble penetration characterized a highly ineffective short shift. He failed to organize the offense or pressure the rim, leading to a string of empty possessions. This inability to initiate any meaningful action resulted in a mild negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1