Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 187 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards Hard 11/28 -0.4
McDaniels Hard 7/16 -0.4
Randle Hard 7/16 -0.4
Reid Hard 5/15 -2.1
DiVincenzo Hard 5/12 +0.5
Gobert Open 5/5 +3.5
Beringer Open 2/3 0.0
Conley Hard 0/3 -3.0
Clark Open 2/2 +1.2

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

George Hard 15/28 +8.2
Bailey 8/17 0.0
Nurkić 7/11 +1.6
Collier Open 7/10 +3.4
Filipowski 3/6 +1.2
Williams Open 4/5 +1.5
Clayton Jr. 2/5 -0.6
Anderson 1/3 -1.3
Mykhailiuk 1/2 -0.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
UTA
44/100 Field Goals 48/87
44.0% Field Goal % 55.2%
14/47 3-Pointers 12/29
29.8% 3-Point % 41.4%
20/27 Free Throws 19/26
74.1% Free Throw % 73.1%
54.5% True Shooting % 64.5%
59 Total Rebounds 51
15 Offensive 8
31 Defensive 37
28 Assists 31
2.55 Assist/TO Ratio 1.82
11 Turnovers 16
12 Steals 8
6 Blocks 4
17 Fouls 22
50 Points in Paint 62
27 Fast Break Pts 18
21 Points off TOs 16
19 Second Chance Pts 15
21 Bench Points 36
15 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Anthony Edwards
38 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 39.2 MIN
+29.54
2
Keyonte George
43 PTS · 0 REB · 3 AST · 39.5 MIN
+22.58
3
Jusuf Nurkić
16 PTS · 18 REB · 10 AST · 30.8 MIN
+20.62
4
Rudy Gobert
11 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 29.3 MIN
+20.34
5
Isaiah Collier
18 PTS · 4 REB · 10 AST · 26.3 MIN
+16.85
6
Donte DiVincenzo
15 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 33.0 MIN
+13.89
7
Julius Randle
19 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 33.9 MIN
+13.16
8
Ace Bailey
20 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 33.2 MIN
+10.41
9
Naz Reid
13 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 28.1 MIN
+9.21
10
Jaylen Clark
4 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 16.6 MIN
+8.83
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:07 A. Bailey REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 122–127
Q4 0:10 MISS J. McDaniels 24' running 3PT 122–127
Q4 0:15 N. Reid REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 122–127
Q4 0:15 MISS K. Filipowski Free Throw 2 of 2 122–127
Q4 0:15 J. Randle lane VIOLATION 122–127
Q4 0:15 K. Filipowski Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 122–127
Q4 0:15 N. Reid take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Filipowski 2 FT) 122–126
Q4 0:16 TEAM defensive REBOUND 122–126
Q4 0:18 MISS A. Edwards 25' 3PT 122–126
Q4 0:26 J. McDaniels REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 122–126
Q4 0:29 MISS I. Collier Free Throw 2 of 2 122–126
Q4 0:29 TEAM offensive REBOUND 122–126
Q4 0:29 MISS I. Collier Free Throw 1 of 2 122–126
Q4 0:29 D. DiVincenzo take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Collier 2 FT) 122–126
Q4 0:33 A. Edwards 3PT (38 PTS) (N. Reid 4 AST) 122–126

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

UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 39.5m
43
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.9

Carried a massive offensive burden with relentless perimeter attacking that completely overwhelmed the defense. His willingness to take over late in the shot clock defined the team's entire offensive strategy, driving a highly positive box score impact.

Shooting
FG 15/28 (53.6%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Scoring +33.0
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +10.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -13.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Ace Bailey 33.2m
20
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Poor shot selection and a heavy volume of missed jumpers dragged his overall impact deep into negative territory. Forcing the issue against set defenses completely negated his positive hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jusuf Nurkić 30.8m
16
pts
18
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.1

Elite distribution from the high post and dominant rebounding completely controlled the game's tempo. Operating as an offensive hub allowed him to pick apart the defense while securing every loose ball in the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +16.1
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cody Williams 28.9m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

A sharp decline in aggression and scoring volume limited his ability to influence the game, despite efficient finishing. Drifting to the perimeter instead of attacking the paint resulted in a passive, low-impact performance.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 17.2m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Failed to replicate his recent shooting success, rendering his floor-spacing role entirely ineffective. A lack of offensive involvement and inability to get open looks resulted in a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggled to establish his usual interior dominance, snapping a long streak of highly efficient performances. Getting pushed off his spots by a physical frontcourt severely limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+6.6

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and highly efficient finishing drove a strong positive score. Consistently breaking down the first line of defense allowed him to generate premium looks for both himself and his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Strong defensive positioning and active hustle plays couldn't fully mask a completely passive offensive showing. Continuing a pattern of reluctance to shoot, he allowed defenders to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

Poor shot quality and an inability to find an offensive rhythm doomed his rotation minutes. Rushing his attempts against set coverage resulted in empty possessions and a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +53.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 39.2m
38
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+29.7

Astronomical usage and relentless attacking generated a massive box score, though missing 17 field goals slightly capped his overall efficiency. His sheer volume of isolation plays dictated the entire offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 5/15 (33.3%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Scoring +25.4
Creation +3.8
Shot Making +7.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 34.9m
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.3

Impact plummeted due to a barrage of missed perimeter looks that negated his solid defensive metrics. Forcing contested jumpers from deep completely undermined his otherwise steady two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -9.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Julius Randle 33.9m
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

A sudden drop in efficiency snapped his streak of highly productive outings, dragging his overall score into the red. Settling for low-quality looks from beyond the arc offset his positive contributions on the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.6

Playmaking and active hands on defense kept his impact barely above water despite a rough shooting night. Clanking six attempts from beyond the arc severely limited his ability to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 29.3m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.3

Flawless execution around the rim and dominant rim protection fueled a massive positive impact. Anchoring the paint with elite defensive positioning completely deterred opponents from challenging him inside.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.9
Defense +4.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 0
Naz Reid 28.1m
13
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Inefficient volume shooting heavily penalized his overall score, as he wasted numerous possessions on contested looks. Failing to provide any meaningful defensive resistance compounded the damage from his ten missed field goals.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +10.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 16.6m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Capitalized perfectly on limited minutes by converting high-percentage opportunities and maintaining strict defensive discipline. His ability to stay within himself and avoid costly mistakes resulted in a highly efficient stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 15.6m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.8

A complete zero in the scoring column tanked his overall value, as he failed to capitalize on any offensive opportunities. While he tried to compensate with active hustle plays, the lack of perimeter threat allowed the defense to sag off him.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Quick decision-making and efficient interior finishing highlighted a brief but productive rotation appearance. Maximized his floor time by taking only optimal shots near the basket.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.9

Invisible on the offensive end, failing to attempt a single shot during his short run. A lack of assertiveness and playmaking initiative prevented him from generating any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0