Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
POR lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
POR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Markkanen 8/17 +0.3
Nurkić 9/12 +6.2
George 5/12 -0.4
Sensabaugh 3/11 -3.8
Mykhailiuk Hard 3/9 -1.8
Williams Open 4/9 -3.5
Filipowski 5/8 +0.9
Clayton Jr. Hard 2/6 -0.4
Hendricks 3/4 +2.3
Collier Open 3/4 +1.2

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Sharpe 11/19 +6.7
Avdija 10/19 +2.3
Camara Hard 5/12 -1.2
Love Hard 6/11 +2.5
Clingan 5/9 +1.6
Cissoko Hard 5/8 +5.7
Murray 3/8 -3.8
Rupert Open 2/5 -2.4
Hansen Hard 1/1 +1.1
Williams III Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
POR
45/92 Field Goals 49/93
48.9% Field Goal % 52.7%
13/31 3-Pointers 19/48
41.9% 3-Point % 39.6%
14/17 Free Throws 20/21
82.4% Free Throw % 95.2%
58.8% True Shooting % 67.0%
47 Total Rebounds 49
14 Offensive 14
28 Defensive 31
32 Assists 32
2.13 Assist/TO Ratio 2.29
15 Turnovers 13
11 Steals 9
2 Blocks 4
19 Fouls 16
52 Points in Paint 48
21 Fast Break Pts 19
15 Points off TOs 27
15 Second Chance Pts 14
43 Bench Points 38
4 Largest Lead 32
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jusuf Nurkić
21 PTS · 12 REB · 5 AST · 30.8 MIN
+31.06
2
Shaedon Sharpe
29 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 27.3 MIN
+29.79
3
Deni Avdija
33 PTS · 8 REB · 9 AST · 28.8 MIN
+27.4
4
Sidy Cissoko
14 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 25.5 MIN
+16.56
5
Kris Murray
10 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 26.7 MIN
+16.45
6
Lauri Markkanen
22 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 31.6 MIN
+14.73
7
Kyle Filipowski
13 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 20.0 MIN
+14.18
8
Isaiah Collier
10 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 29.8 MIN
+12.92
9
Donovan Clingan
12 PTS · 17 REB · 2 AST · 33.0 MIN
+12.25
10
Toumani Camara
15 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 35.3 MIN
+8.55
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 POR shot clock Team TURNOVER 117–137
Q4 0:38 I. Collier Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 117–137
Q4 0:38 I. Collier Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 116–137
Q4 0:38 R. Rupert personal FOUL (4 PF) (Collier 2 FT) 115–137
Q4 0:50 Yang Free Throw 2 of 2 (4 PTS) 115–137
Q4 0:50 Yang Free Throw 1 of 2 (3 PTS) 115–136
Q4 0:50 T. Hendricks shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Hansen 2 FT) 115–135
Q4 1:11 K. Filipowski Layup (13 PTS) (W. Clayton Jr. 3 AST) 115–135
Q4 1:25 C. Love driving Layup (14 PTS) 113–135
Q4 1:37 D. Reath REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 113–133
Q4 1:39 MISS K. Filipowski 3PT 113–133
Q4 2:02 Yang 9' turnaround Hook (2 PTS) (S. Cissoko 2 AST) 113–133
Q4 2:14 C. Williams personal FOUL (1 PF) 113–131
Q4 2:25 S. Cissoko STEAL (2 STL) 113–131
Q4 2:25 W. Clayton Jr. lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 113–131

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 35.3m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

A brutal showing from beyond the arc ruined his offensive efficiency and dragged down his overall impact. Opponents dared him to shoot by utilizing drop coverage, and his inability to punish that scheme bogged down Portland's half-court spacing. The wasted offensive possessions were simply too costly to overcome, even with decent defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 33.0m
12
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Likely turnover issues or foul trouble skewed his impact negative despite his dominance on the glass. He controlled the paint defensively by altering multiple shots at the rim. However, offensive clumsiness and poor screen-setting execution gave away crucial possessions, undermining his massive rebounding advantage.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +18.7
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Deni Avdija 28.8m
33
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+22.2

Functioning as a primary offensive engine, he leveraged his size to create mismatches and generate high-quality looks. His ability to consistently knock down perimeter shots opened up driving lanes, allowing him to spray passes to open shooters. The sheer volume of efficient offensive production easily outweighed any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +25.6
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +6.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Shaedon Sharpe 27.3m
29
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+25.6

Elite shot-making and high-level offensive creation drove a massive positive impact. Torching defensive rotations with a lethal combination of perimeter shooting and aggressive drives, he completely dictated the pace of the game. Balancing his scoring with timely playmaking allowed him to control the floor during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +23.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Murray 26.7m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Defensive activity and hustle plays generated positive value entirely on their own, masking a completely cold night from deep. Embracing a gritty role as a perimeter stopper, he consistently disrupted passing lanes and fought through screens. The breakout scoring volume was a bonus, but his defensive motor is what kept his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 27.6m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.4

Poor perimeter efficiency and a lack of hustle plays completely negated his high scoring volume. Operating as a high-usage chucker in the second unit, he frequently settled for contested pull-ups instead of moving the ball. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition attacks, severely damaging his net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Sidy Cissoko 25.5m
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Staggering hustle metrics and scorching perimeter shooting made him an absolute revelation off the bench. He completely flipped the game's momentum with high-energy closeouts and relentless loose ball recoveries. This sudden explosion in offensive confidence transformed him into a lethal two-way weapon.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 18.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Negative defensive value and an inability to connect from deep sank his overall impact. Struggling to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, he was frequently responsible for defensive breakdowns. His hesitancy to attack closeouts stalled ball movement and resulted in empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Minimal offensive involvement and a very short leash resulted in a slightly negative footprint. Though he converted his only look at the rim, he failed to generate his usual defensive disruption. The short stint prevented him from establishing any real rhythm or altering the geometry of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 2.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Zero offensive involvement and an absence of hustle stats characterized a completely invisible stint. He merely occupied space on the floor without altering shots or securing rebounds. The slight negative rating reflects empty minutes where the opponent marginally won the possession battle.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Converting his only field goal attempt and avoiding mistakes allowed him to make the most of a brief cameo. He provided a quick burst of competent execution during garbage time. The positive rating is purely a reflection of a clean, error-free stint in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 32.8m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Empty offensive volume and likely high turnover costs severely punished his minutes on the floor. Unable to break down the primary point-of-attack defender, he was forced into low-percentage shots inside the arc. This inability to generate high-quality looks completely derailed his playmaking impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Lauri Markkanen 31.6m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.5

Hustle plays and strong defensive metrics kept his head above water despite a middling shooting night. He anchored the frontcourt defense during crucial stretches, creating value through active contests and off-ball movement. Missed perimeter attempts ultimately capped his offensive ceiling, preventing a truly dominant rating.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.5
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jusuf Nurkić 30.8m
21
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+22.9

Hyper-efficient interior finishing and elite rebounding drove a massive positive impact. He absolutely bullied his matchup in the paint, generating second-chance opportunities while locking down the defensive glass. Operating as a high-post hub without turning the ball over maximized Utah's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +18.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +14.3
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.9

Poor shot selection caused a steep regression from his recent scoring tear, cratering his overall value. Rather than attacking the rim, he settled for contested jumpers that stalled the second-unit offense. Even with some defensive resistance, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 20.0m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Cratering perimeter efficiency and negative defensive value completely tanked his overall impact. Forcing contested jumpers against tight closeouts, he failed to replicate his recent hot streak. The resulting long rebounds from his missed threes directly fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.8

Hidden negatives, likely a high volume of live-ball turnovers, completely undid his strong box score metrics. While orchestrating the offense, his sloppy ball security gave away far too many easy transition points. It was a classic case of high-risk playmaking yielding a slightly negative overall return.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Plummeting scoring efficiency and missed perimeter opportunities pushed his impact into the red. Struggling to find rhythm against physical wing defense, he failed to capitalize on spot-up looks. The inability to convert offensive chances stalled the team's momentum during his shifts, outweighing his solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Reliable interior scoring and solid defensive positioning anchored a steady positive impact. He continued his streak of efficient shooting nights by picking his spots carefully as a roll man in the pick-and-roll. Disciplined shot selection and rim protection provided stabilizing rotation minutes despite a dip in scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Hovering near neutral, his highly efficient finishing was offset by a lack of overall involvement. He capitalized on his limited touches as a cutter to break out of a recent slump. However, failing to command the glass or disrupt passing lanes kept his overall footprint minimal.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.2

Inefficient perimeter shooting and a lack of secondary contributions sank his overall rating. Forcing the issue offensively during a cold stretch, he took heavily contested looks early in the shot clock. Without defensive playmaking to fall back on, his missed shots directly hurt the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1