Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

White Hard 6/16 -2.6
Giddey 7/13 -0.4
Vučević Hard 3/10 -1.4
Smith 6/9 +3.7
Dosunmu 2/9 -4.5
Buzelis 3/8 -1.2
Jones Open 5/7 +1.8
Okoro 3/7 -0.4
Huerter 1/4 -1.6
Williams 2/3 +1.5

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards 9/25 -6.0
Randle 10/17 +4.6
Reid Hard 8/12 +7.3
DiVincenzo Hard 4/10 -0.3
McDaniels 6/9 +5.1
Hyland Hard 1/6 -3.1
Gobert Open 3/5 -0.5
Conley Hard 1/5 -2.3
Clark 1/3 -1.7
Beringer Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
MIN
38/86 Field Goals 43/93
44.2% Field Goal % 46.2%
17/39 3-Pointers 15/41
43.6% 3-Point % 36.6%
27/33 Free Throws 14/15
81.8% Free Throw % 93.3%
59.7% True Shooting % 57.7%
59 Total Rebounds 48
5 Offensive 9
38 Defensive 36
28 Assists 29
2.33 Assist/TO Ratio 2.07
11 Turnovers 14
7 Steals 6
1 Blocks 9
18 Fouls 27
40 Points in Paint 44
17 Fast Break Pts 12
11 Points off TOs 15
11 Second Chance Pts 13
49 Bench Points 28
7 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Naz Reid
20 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 28.6 MIN
+19.34
2
Josh Giddey
21 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 26.0 MIN
+19.03
3
Julius Randle
30 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 30.5 MIN
+17.11
4
Rudy Gobert
10 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 33.7 MIN
+14.52
5
Jaden McDaniels
16 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 35.7 MIN
+14.11
6
Jalen Smith
17 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 26.9 MIN
+12.36
7
Matas Buzelis
12 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 27.9 MIN
+12.09
8
Tre Jones
12 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 26.9 MIN
+11.39
9
Donte DiVincenzo
11 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 35.4 MIN
+10.05
10
Isaac Okoro
10 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 26.3 MIN
+9.48
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 120–115
Q4 0:00 MISS A. Edwards 25' pullup 3PT 120–115
Q4 0:03 C. White Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 120–115
Q4 0:03 C. White Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 119–115
Q4 0:03 J. Randle take personal FOUL (6 PF) (White 2 FT) 118–115
Q4 0:04 C. White REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 118–115
Q4 0:09 MISS A. Edwards turnaround 3PT 118–115
Q4 0:11 J. Smith Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 118–115
Q4 0:11 J. Smith Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 117–115
Q4 0:11 J. Randle take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Smith 2 FT) 116–115
Q4 0:12 A. Edwards take personal FOUL (5 PF) 116–115
Q4 0:15 J. Giddey REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 116–115
Q4 0:19 MISS A. Edwards 24' pullup 3PT 116–115
Q4 0:31 T. Jones driving Layup (12 PTS) (C. White 4 AST) 116–115
Q4 0:34 J. McDaniels lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 114–115

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

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 35.7m
16
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.5

Despite hyper-efficient shooting, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses and a failure to generate disruptive plays. He was too easily screened out of actions on the perimeter, allowing opponents to capitalize on advantageous matchups.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.0

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and relentless defensive ball pressure defined a gritty, high-motor performance. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and generated crucial extra possessions, easily offsetting a streaky shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 34.7m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.6

A catastrophic shot selection profile cratered his impact score, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely negated his scoring output, stalling the team's momentum during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/25 (36.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 33.7m
10
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.5

Elite rim protection and dominant rebounding fundamentally altered the opponent's shot profile. He served as an impenetrable backline anchor, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass to secure a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +13.0
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Julius Randle 30.5m
30
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.5

Bully-ball drives and a scorching shooting touch overwhelmed the interior defense, driving a massive offensive rating. While his defensive effort waned at times, his sheer scoring gravity and playmaking out of double teams dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +24.7
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense -2.8
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Naz Reid 28.6m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.2

A lethal combination of floor-spacing and decisive attacks off the catch completely fractured the opposing frontcourt defense. He provided a massive spark of energy, anchoring a highly successful stretch of basketball with both scoring gravity and surprisingly stout defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
Mike Conley 14.3m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

An inability to create separation or connect from deep severely hampered the half-court flow during his minutes. While he remained active defensively, the offensive stagnation he presided over ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 12.3m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

Poor spacing and defensive miscommunications led to a rough stretch that heavily penalized his impact score. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently leaving shooters open and compromising the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 11.8m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Errant perimeter shooting and an inability to break down his primary defender stalled the second-unit offense. His quick-trigger decisions often bailed out the defense, leading to a negative stint despite decent defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

A brief, uneventful cameo yielded a slightly negative rating due to a lack of tangible production. He was essentially a placeholder on the floor, failing to register any significant actions on either end during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -62.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Inefficient finishing around the basket dragged down his net impact, squandering multiple high-value scoring opportunities in the paint. Even with respectable defensive positioning, the sheer volume of missed interior looks severely limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Coby White 29.9m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

High scoring volume masked a heavily negative impact driven by poor shot selection and a diet of contested perimeter looks. While he brought energy in transition, the sheer number of wasted half-court possessions ultimately dragged the team's efficiency into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Matas Buzelis 27.9m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Decent defensive and hustle metrics kept his overall impact slightly positive despite a lack of offensive aggression. His willingness to compete on the perimeter masked some passivity, as he settled into a complementary spacing role rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Smith 26.9m
17
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

A massive surge in shooting efficiency fueled a highly positive offensive showing, punishing defensive rotations from the perimeter. His floor-spacing completely shifted the geometry of the half-court offense, while steady positioning anchored a solid two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -5.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaac Okoro 26.3m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Elite defensive pressure and relentless hustle plays defined this outing, generating extra possessions and disrupting opponent rhythm. He perfectly executed his role as a point-of-attack stopper, letting the game come to him offensively while locking down the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 26.9m
12
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.0

Surgical precision as a playmaker and highly efficient shot selection kept his impact in the green. He played an incredibly controlled game, managing the tempo flawlessly while providing steady point-of-attack defense to stabilize the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Giddey 26.0m
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.7

Masterful pacing and elite defensive anticipation drove a dominant two-way performance. By consistently breaking down the first line of defense and making sharp reads, he dictated the flow of the game and generated high-quality looks for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +15.5
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 21.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

A sharp drop in offensive production and struggles to finish through contact resulted in a negative overall rating. He failed to establish any rhythm attacking the paint, rendering him largely ineffective during half-court sets and stalling the offense.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Complete invisibility on both ends of the floor led to a heavily negative impact score during his brief stint. A severe lack of aggression and failure to generate any meaningful hustle stats made him a liability, as opponents easily bypassed him in defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Brief minutes limited his overall footprint, but active defensive rotations kept his head above water. He struggled to find his shooting stroke in the short stint, relying entirely on off-ball movement to stay relevant.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0