Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Sensabaugh 15/22 +12.0
George 8/17 -3.8
Filipowski Open 9/15 +0.5
Bailey 4/9 -2.9
Collier Open 3/6 -1.3
Williams Open 3/6 -1.8
Clayton Jr. Hard 1/6 -3.7
Anderson 3/4 +1.7
Hendricks Hard 1/1 +1.9

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Vučević 14/22 +4.2
Dosunmu Hard 6/11 +2.2
Okoro 5/10 -1.1
Jones 3/8 -2.6
Terry 4/7 +3.0
Huerter Hard 3/7 +0.7
Smith 3/7 -0.2
Buzelis 3/7 -1.0
White Hard 2/7 -2.4
Williams Hard 4/6 +4.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
CHI
47/86 Field Goals 47/92
54.7% Field Goal % 51.1%
8/28 3-Pointers 17/43
28.6% 3-Point % 39.5%
24/27 Free Throws 17/21
88.9% Free Throw % 81.0%
64.4% True Shooting % 63.2%
42 Total Rebounds 50
8 Offensive 13
28 Defensive 30
30 Assists 36
2.31 Assist/TO Ratio 2.77
13 Turnovers 13
9 Steals 10
2 Blocks 5
20 Fouls 19
72 Points in Paint 60
20 Fast Break Pts 12
16 Points off TOs 16
16 Second Chance Pts 13
58 Bench Points 61
4 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Brice Sensabaugh
43 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 34.3 MIN
+40.69
2
Nikola Vučević
35 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 30.9 MIN
+34.92
3
Kyle Filipowski
19 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 30.8 MIN
+21.34
4
Dalen Terry
11 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 13.4 MIN
+20.9
5
Keyonte George
25 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 34.1 MIN
+17.79
6
Ayo Dosunmu
15 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 27.9 MIN
+15.82
7
Patrick Williams
13 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 23.4 MIN
+15.4
8
Tre Jones
7 PTS · 0 REB · 8 AST · 26.2 MIN
+12.2
9
Ace Bailey
10 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 31.1 MIN
+9.39
10
Jalen Smith
12 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 17.1 MIN
+9.32
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 C. White REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 126–128
Q4 0:01 MISS K. George 26' pullup 3PT 126–128
Q4 0:04 N. Vučević Layup (35 PTS) (T. Jones 8 AST) 126–128
Q4 0:04 I. Okoro REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 126–126
Q4 0:04 MISS C. White 26' 3PT 126–126
Q4 0:28 B. Sensabaugh driving Layup (43 PTS) (K. George 7 AST) 126–126
Q4 0:31 C. White bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (5 TO) 124–126
Q4 0:37 I. Okoro REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 124–126
Q4 0:39 N. Vučević BLOCK (2 BLK) 124–126
Q4 0:39 MISS K. Filipowski driving Layup - blocked 124–126
Q4 0:45 K. Huerter Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 124–126
Q4 0:45 K. Huerter Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 124–125
Q4 0:45 K. Filipowski shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Huerter 2 FT) 124–124
Q4 0:57 K. George Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 124–124
Q4 0:57 K. George Free Throw 1 of 2 (24 PTS) 123–124

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

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 33.8m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Poor closeouts and missed defensive assignments uncharacteristically dragged his impact into the red. He allowed too much dribble penetration on the perimeter, forcing the interior defense to collapse repeatedly. Despite a steady offensive output, the defensive lapses proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
35
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+30.2

Masterful operation out of the post and pick-and-pop actions completely dismantled the opposing frontcourt. He consistently punished switches, generating high-quality looks for himself and drawing double teams to open up the perimeter. His sheer scoring gravity and interior presence anchored a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 14/22 (63.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +28.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Coby White 29.9m
6
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-21.6

A brutal shooting slump from the perimeter severely handicapped the offense's half-court spacing. Although he compensated slightly with excellent hustle from the guard spot, his inability to bend the defense as a scoring threat stalled multiple drives. The offensive stagnation he caused ultimately cratered his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Tre Jones 26.2m
7
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.2

Elite defensive pressure at the point of attack generated immense value, constantly disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation. However, his uncharacteristic struggles to finish around the basket offset those defensive gains. The failure to convert on typical high-percentage looks snapped his efficiency streak and kept his net score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +9.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 18.6m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

A sharp regression in offensive assertiveness limited his ability to pressure the rim. He settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, failing to establish the scoring rhythm he has shown in recent outings. This passive approach offensively negated his otherwise adequate hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 27.9m
15
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.9

Tenacious on-ball defense and quick hands in the passing lanes fueled transition opportunities all night. He made excellent reads when attacking closeouts, balancing his own scoring with timely kick-outs to shooters. The combination of defensive disruption and steady playmaking secured a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Perfect execution from beyond the arc punished defenders for leaving him open in the corners. He broke out of a severe scoring slump by decisively attacking closeouts rather than hesitating. Solid weak-side rim protection further cemented a highly efficient, two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Defensive liabilities heavily outweighed his perimeter shot-making in this contest. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, giving up straight-line drives and failing to navigate screens effectively. The constant defensive breakdowns bled points, ruining what was otherwise an acceptable offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jalen Smith 17.1m
12
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt opened up crucial driving lanes during his minutes on the floor. He capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities to significantly boost his recent scoring average. While his defensive presence was merely average, the offensive versatility he provided kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +9.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 13.4m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.1

Absolute havoc on the defensive end defined this explosive stint off the bench. He completely derailed the opponent's second unit with elite ball pressure and deflections, while simultaneously catching fire from deep. This high-energy, two-way surge in limited minutes produced a staggering positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 34.1m
25
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.0

A barrage of missed three-pointers nearly erased the value of his high-volume playmaking and interior scoring. He forced the issue from the perimeter instead of attacking the rim where he was finding success. Ultimately, his positive defensive reads barely kept his net impact above water during a rough shooting slump from deep.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +18.1
Creation +5.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 31.2m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

A severe drop in offensive aggression limited his overall effectiveness, as he passed up open looks he normally takes. Despite solid defensive rotations and hustle metrics, his reluctance to initiate offense dragged down the team's spacing. The steep decline in scoring volume ultimately tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Ace Bailey 31.1m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Perimeter struggles defined his night, with empty possessions from beyond the arc stalling the offensive flow. While he managed decent peripheral production, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint. His negative overall impact reflects a failure to adapt his shot selection when the deep ball wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 30.8m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

High-level efficiency in the paint continues to be his calling card, extending his streak of highly effective interior performances. He generated massive value through excellent defensive positioning and relentless activity on the glass. The combination of reliable finishing and strong hustle metrics drove a dominant positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Collier 21.6m
8
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.4

Zero presence on the glass heavily penalized his overall rating, giving opponents too many second-chance opportunities. He failed to generate meaningful defensive resistance, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the team's shell. The lack of peripheral contributions turned a quiet offensive night into a significant net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
43
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+42.1

An absolute masterclass in shot-making fueled a massive spike in his offensive rating. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up jumpers to double his usual scoring output. Strong defensive engagement further amplified his stellar offensive rhythm, resulting in a game-breaking positive impact.

Shooting
FG 15/22 (68.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +38.0
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +9.7
Hustle +6.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.5

Excellent point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to salvage a disastrous shooting performance. He settled for contested perimeter looks rather than moving the ball, short-circuiting several offensive possessions. The stark drop in scoring efficiency ultimately outweighed his disruptive defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Complete offensive invisibility torpedoed his impact score, as he failed to make himself available in half-court sets. While his defensive positioning remained adequate, his refusal to challenge the defense or attack closeouts left his team playing four-on-five on the other end. The lack of overall engagement resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Smart, opportunistic cuts to the basket yielded a highly efficient scoring bump compared to his recent baseline. He glued the second unit together with timely defensive rotations and active hands in passing lanes. This low-usage, high-efficiency outing perfectly illustrates his value as a connective piece.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0