Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Clowney Hard 4/17 -5.8
Thomas Hard 4/12 -2.1
Wolf 4/11 -2.4
Traore 2/9 -5.9
Martin Hard 6/8 +8.3
Sharpe Open 4/7 -1.3
Claxton Open 3/7 -2.5
Wilson Hard 4/6 +4.0
Mann 3/6 +0.3
Dëmin Hard 2/5 +1.2

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Coward Hard 8/15 +4.5
Landale 6/11 +2.8
Caldwell-Pope Hard 5/11 +1.3
Jackson Jr. 3/11 -5.5
Aldama 7/10 +5.3
Williams Jr. 2/10 -6.3
Spencer Hard 3/7 +0.2
Wells 1/7 -5.6
Koloko Open 1/4 -3.1
Jackson Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
MEM
36/88 Field Goals 37/88
40.9% Field Goal % 42.0%
18/48 3-Pointers 11/34
37.5% 3-Point % 32.4%
8/16 Free Throws 18/18
50.0% Free Throw % 100.0%
51.6% True Shooting % 53.7%
50 Total Rebounds 61
13 Offensive 16
30 Defensive 38
25 Assists 27
2.50 Assist/TO Ratio 1.80
10 Turnovers 14
10 Steals 6
6 Blocks 7
17 Fouls 15
34 Points in Paint 44
8 Fast Break Pts 17
25 Points off TOs 9
17 Second Chance Pts 19
49 Bench Points 38
8 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jock Landale
16 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 27.7 MIN
+22.66
2
Tyrese Martin
17 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 21.5 MIN
+20.72
3
Santi Aldama
15 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 33.2 MIN
+19.19
4
Day'Ron Sharpe
8 PTS · 13 REB · 3 AST · 20.6 MIN
+16.93
5
Cedric Coward
21 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 26.6 MIN
+15.83
6
Danny Wolf
11 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 24.6 MIN
+12.18
7
Jalen Wilson
11 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 17.7 MIN
+11.82
8
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 20.4 MIN
+11.69
9
Cam Spencer
12 PTS · 4 REB · 13 AST · 29.6 MIN
+11.5
10
Noah Clowney
17 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 30.3 MIN
+9.48
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 S. Aldama REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 98–103
Q4 0:04 MISS D. Wolf 25' pullup 3PT 98–103
Q4 0:10 J. Jackson Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 98–103
Q4 0:10 J. Jackson Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 98–102
Q4 0:10 D. Wolf personal FOUL (2 PF) (Jackson Jr. 2 FT) 98–101
Q4 0:12 J. Landale REBOUND (Off:5 Def:4) 98–101
Q4 0:15 MISS C. Coward 27' pullup 3PT 98–101
Q4 0:36 C. Coward REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 98–101
Q4 0:40 MISS N. Clowney 25' pullup 3PT 98–101
Q4 0:49 D. Wolf REBOUND (Off:3 Def:7) 98–101
Q4 0:53 MISS N. Clowney 25' 3PT 98–101
Q4 0:59 C. Coward 25' 3PT (21 PTS) (C. Spencer 13 AST) 98–101
Q4 1:02 J. Landale REBOUND (Off:4 Def:4) 98–98
Q4 1:02 MISS J. Landale tip Layup 98–98
Q4 1:02 J. Landale REBOUND (Off:3 Def:4) 98–98

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
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Elite rim protection and defensive deterrence were entirely offset by a frustratingly inefficient offensive outing. He settled for heavily contested face-up jumpers rather than leveraging his size in the paint, resulting in empty possessions. This disjointed shot profile prevented him from capitalizing on an otherwise dominant defensive performance.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Cam Spencer 29.6m
12
pts
4
reb
13
ast
Impact
+0.8

Despite orchestrating the offense with elite vision and racking up dimes, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive mismatches. Opposing guards consistently targeted his lack of lateral quickness, blowing by him at the point of attack to collapse the scheme. Consequently, his brilliant half-court facilitation was marginally outweighed by the points bled on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jock Landale 27.8m
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.4

Superb pick-and-pop execution and stout interior positioning generated a massive positive impact score. He consistently dragged the opposing center away from the basket, punishing drop coverages with confident outside shooting. This offensive versatility, combined with disciplined verticality at the rim, completely tilted the frontcourt matchup in his favor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +11.4
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 26.6m
21
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.6

Lethal off-ball movement and high-volume perimeter accuracy drove a stellar net rating. He relentlessly punished late closeouts, turning transition scrambles into immediate points from beyond the arc. This aggressive, confident shot profile forced the defense to face-guard him, opening up the interior for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 21.6m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.5

A severe regression in shooting efficiency tanked his overall rating, as he repeatedly forced contested looks off the dribble. Opponents capitalized on his clanked jumpers to ignite early offense, exposing the transition defense. His inability to find an offensive rhythm completely negated a handful of energetic closeouts on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Santi Aldama 33.2m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

A masterclass in weak-side defensive rotations and hyper-efficient finishing produced a towering overall impact score. He seamlessly toggled between protecting the rim and switching onto wings, completely suffocating the opponent's offensive flow. On the other end, his decisive cutting and refusal to force bad shots maximized every touch he received.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 21.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

An icy shooting performance heavily penalized his net rating, as he repeatedly clanked open looks from the perimeter. The opposition actively ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to pack the paint and stifle driving lanes for his teammates. While he attempted to compensate as a connective passer, the lack of scoring gravity proved too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Timely perimeter shot-making and steady point-of-attack pressure kept his impact firmly in the green. He excelled at navigating screens to bother the primary ball-handler, disrupting the timing of the opponent's sets. This reliable 3-and-D execution provided essential stability during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Fumbled catches and blown layups in traffic undercut a fundamentally sound defensive stint. He protected the restricted area admirably, deterring several drives with his sheer length and verticality. However, his inability to convert high-percentage dump-offs stalled out multiple promising offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
GG Jackson 9.8m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

A shocking lack of offensive involvement tanked his impact during a brief, ineffective stint on the floor. He failed to establish any scoring rhythm, floating on the perimeter instead of aggressively hunting his usual mismatches. This extreme passivity allowed the defense to effectively play five-on-four, stalling the unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Despite failing to register on the scoreboard during a brief cameo, his disciplined defensive positioning yielded a slightly positive impact. He made a pair of crucial closeouts that forced difficult, late-clock heaves from the opposition. This short burst of energy provided a stabilizing presence at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Noah Clowney 30.3m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

A massive spike in perimeter volume resulted in brutal shooting efficiency, yet his overall impact remained positive due to elite defensive metrics. Relentless hustle and switchability on the perimeter completely neutralized his primary matchup. He effectively traded offensive rhythm for high-level disruption on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 4/15 (26.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 28.4m
7
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

A stark lack of aggression on the offensive end cratered his net impact, as he frequently deferred rather than attacking closeouts. While he spaced the floor well on limited attempts, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards consistently compromised the defensive shell. This perimeter bleeding ultimately outweighed his efficient, albeit sparse, shot selection.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 27.4m
7
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.6

Despite flashing unusual playmaking utility from the high post, a passive scoring approach dragged down his overall net impact. He anchored the defense adequately but failed to assert himself as a roll man, passing up looks he normally converts. This hesitation to attack the rim allowed the defense to sag and clog the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Terance Mann 26.3m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.2

Severe negative impact stemmed from an inability to generate meaningful offensive gravity, stalling out half-court possessions. Even with a slight uptick in scoring efficiency compared to recent outings, his overall passivity allowed defenders to roam freely. He was routinely targeted in transition, erasing any marginal gains from his spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Danny Wolf 24.6m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Defensive anchoring and consistent hustle plays drove a sturdy positive impact, easily masking his struggles to finish inside the arc. By stretching the floor with timely perimeter shooting, he successfully pulled opposing bigs out of the paint. This reliable two-way presence stabilized the frontcourt rotation despite his lack of playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +10.8
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Thomas 23.6m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Poor shot selection and forced isolation attempts heavily dragged down his overall impact score. He repeatedly derailed the offensive flow by hunting contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock. Although he showed a slight improvement in scoring volume over recent games, the inefficient diet of tough looks gave the opponent too many transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.7

Blistering perimeter efficiency spearheaded a massive surge in overall impact, completely breaking out of his recent scoring slump. He punished late rotations with decisive catch-and-shoot execution, stretching the defense to its breaking point. This sudden injection of elite spacing opened up driving lanes for the entire unit during his floor time.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.1

Absolute dominance on the interior drove a massive positive rating, as he consistently generated second-chance opportunities. His physicality completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt, anchoring a highly successful defensive stint in the paint. By executing perfectly as a screener and rim-runner, he maximized his utility without requiring post-up touches.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +15.5
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Nolan Traore 19.6m
4
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.8

Bricklaying from beyond the arc severely punished his net impact, completely neutralizing his solid playmaking reads. Defenders aggressively went under screens, daring him to shoot, which bogged down the entire half-court offense. This inability to punish drop coverage turned what could have been a productive distribution night into a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Wilson 17.7m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

High-quality shot selection and steady perimeter execution fueled a highly efficient, positive stint off the bench. He consistently found the soft spots in the zone defense, punishing the opposition with timely corner triples. This reliable floor spacing provided a crucial offensive safety valve without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0