Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead BKN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BKN 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 160 attempts

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Dëmin Hard 8/16 +6.3
Thomas Hard 7/15 +1.3
Wolf 6/11 +1.6
Traore 3/8 -2.6
Wilson Hard 3/7 +2.1
Claxton Open 3/7 -2.3
Mann 3/6 +0.7
Saraf 1/6 -4.3
Sharpe Open 4/5 +2.5
Powell Open 1/1 +0.8

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Sensabaugh Hard 6/14 +1.6
George 9/11 +6.3
Bailey Hard 5/10 +1.7
Collier Open 5/10 -1.7
Filipowski 6/9 +4.6
Hendricks 3/7 -1.0
Williams 3/6 -0.3
Mykhailiuk Hard 1/6 -2.6
Clayton Jr. 0/3 -3.3
Anderson Hard 1/2 +0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BKN
UTA
39/82 Field Goals 39/78
47.6% Field Goal % 50.0%
14/40 3-Pointers 10/29
35.0% 3-Point % 34.5%
17/28 Free Throws 11/19
60.7% Free Throw % 57.9%
57.8% True Shooting % 57.3%
60 Total Rebounds 42
11 Offensive 6
36 Defensive 27
27 Assists 26
2.25 Assist/TO Ratio 2.36
12 Turnovers 11
6 Steals 6
5 Blocks 4
20 Fouls 23
46 Points in Paint 56
7 Fast Break Pts 14
9 Points off TOs 18
20 Second Chance Pts 2
50 Bench Points 38
15 Largest Lead 6
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Keyonte George
26 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 32.3 MIN
+20.92
2
Egor Dëmin
25 PTS · 10 REB · 4 AST · 29.4 MIN
+18.95
3
Day'Ron Sharpe
16 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 17.8 MIN
+13.91
4
Ace Bailey
12 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 29.3 MIN
+12.47
5
Brice Sensabaugh
18 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 26.1 MIN
+11.49
6
Cam Thomas
21 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 24.0 MIN
+11.24
7
Kyle Filipowski
14 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 28.5 MIN
+10.67
8
Jalen Wilson
9 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 19.5 MIN
+9.54
9
Danny Wolf
14 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 28.5 MIN
+8.01
10
Terance Mann
7 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 28.3 MIN
+6.13
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 N. Traore personal FOUL (1 PF) 109–99
Q4 0:06 K. Filipowski REBOUND (Off:1 Def:11) 109–99
Q4 0:09 MISS D. Wolf 26' 3PT 109–99
Q4 0:32 B. Sensabaugh 26' 3PT step back (18 PTS) 109–99
Q4 0:43 B. Sensabaugh REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 109–96
Q4 0:43 MISS E. Dëmin Free Throw 2 of 2 109–96
Q4 0:43 E. Dëmin Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 109–96
Q4 0:43 K. Filipowski loose ball personal FOUL (5 PF) (Dëmin 2 FT) 108–96
Q4 0:43 TEAM defensive REBOUND 108–96
Q4 0:44 MISS C. Williams 6' pullup Shot 108–96
Q4 0:52 B. Sensabaugh technical Free Throw 1 of 1 (15 PTS) 108–96
Q4 0:52 TEAM foul technical 108–95
Q4 0:55 N. Traore lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 108–95
Q4 1:05 K. Filipowski driving Layup (14 PTS) (I. Collier 7 AST) 108–95
Q4 1:12 D. Wolf driving Layup (14 PTS) (N. Traore 6 AST) 108–93

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 32.3m
26
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.3

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll completely dismantled the opposing defense. He manipulated screen coverages with elite pace, consistently finding the roll man or punishing under-the-screen coverages with decisive pull-ups. The offensive brilliance was complemented by active, disruptive hands on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Scoring +23.0
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 29.3m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Energized the lineup with a relentless motor, generating crucial extra possessions through sheer hustle. He thrived in chaotic sequences, turning broken plays into high-value transition opportunities. His length at the point of attack disrupted the opponent's primary ball-handlers all night.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cody Williams 28.5m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Offensive production dipped significantly as he struggled to finish through contact at the rim. Despite the scoring drought, he maintained value through relentless weak-side defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes. His transition defense neutralized multiple fast-break opportunities, keeping the overall impact from cratering.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 28.5m
14
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.1

While his raw scoring output dipped from recent highs, his physical screening and high-post facilitation kept the offense humming. He consistently sealed his man early in transition, forcing defensive mismatches before the half-court set even materialized. Solid positional defense in the paint further validated his positive floor presence.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +14.3
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Svi Mykhailiuk 21.1m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Sharp decline in scoring impact stemmed from an inability to shake loose from top-locking defenders. He forced several unbalanced attempts coming off pin-down screens, short-circuiting the offensive flow. The lack of spacing gravity allowed the opposition to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.7

Playmaking volume was overshadowed by reckless drives into heavy traffic that resulted in costly empty possessions. He struggled to read the weak-side help, frequently getting trapped along the baseline. While his point-of-attack defense showed flashes, the offensive decision-making severely hampered the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Capitalized on defensive mismatches by aggressively hunting his spots in the mid-range. He showed excellent balance pulling up off the dribble, punishing defenders who went under screens. The scoring efficiency carried his impact, masking a relatively quiet night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

Slow-paced facilitation failed to generate meaningful advantages against a switch-heavy defensive scheme. He frequently held the ball too long at the top of the key, allowing the defense to reset and stagnating the half-court flow. A lack of scoring threat rendered him a non-factor down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Perimeter spacing suffered due to rushed mechanics on catch-and-shoot opportunities. He was consistently late on defensive closeouts, allowing clean looks from the corners during critical momentum shifts. The inability to stretch the floor vertically or horizontally limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.9

A brutal shooting slump completely erased his offensive utility, as he failed to connect on heavily contested looks. He attempted to compensate with high-energy defensive pressure, fighting over screens to bother opposing guards. However, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips kept his net impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Nic Claxton 30.2m
6
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Anchored the interior with exceptional rim protection, altering multiple shots during a crucial third-quarter stretch. However, his offensive execution cratered as he struggled to finish through contact in the paint. The massive defensive metrics couldn't entirely offset the empty possessions and missed reads on offense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/6 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +10.5
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Egor Dëmin 29.4m
25
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.1

Completely controlled the offensive tempo by punishing drop coverage with lethal perimeter execution. His shot selection was impeccable, consistently finding the soft spots in the defense to generate high-value looks. Active hands in passing lanes further amplified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +4.9
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Danny Wolf 28.5m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Offensive confidence surged with a noticeable increase in scoring volume, yet his net rating suffered from glaring defensive passivity. He was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll switches, offering zero resistance at the point of attack. Poor closeout angles negated the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Terance Mann 28.3m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite an uptick in scoring aggression compared to recent outings, his overall value plummeted due to sloppy ball security in transition. He repeatedly forced passes into tight windows, generating live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's fast break. A few timely weak-side rotations barely softened the blow.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 25.6m
7
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.6

Playmaking vision flashed in the half-court, but erratic decision-making under pressure ultimately dragged his impact into the red. He struggled to navigate aggressive perimeter hedges, resulting in stalled possessions and late-clock bailouts. Defensive hustle plays kept him afloat, though the offensive rhythm remained disjointed.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Cam Thomas 24.0m
21
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.7

An aggressive scoring mentality broke him out of a recent slump, driving significant offensive value through sheer shot creation. He effectively exploited isolation mismatches on the wing, forcing defensive rotations that opened up the floor. While his off-ball defense remains a work in progress, the scoring gravity dictated the opponent's scheme.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Ben Saraf 20.6m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

A severe regression in offensive rhythm resulted in forced, contested jumpers early in the shot clock. He failed to create separation off the dribble, allowing perimeter defenders to smother his driving lanes. The resulting empty trips neutralized any marginal gains from his on-ball defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Wilson 19.5m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Provided exceptional two-way stability by seamlessly connecting the offense and blowing up perimeter screens on the other end. His spatial awareness in the corners stretched the defense, punishing late closeouts with decisive shot-making. He consistently made the right read against trapping schemes, keeping the ball moving efficiently.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.6

Dominated the painted area by establishing deep post position and converting high-percentage looks around the basket. His sheer physicality wore down the opposing frontcourt, creating second-chance opportunities through relentless positioning. The interior efficiency anchored the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Drake Powell 16.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Hesitancy on the perimeter severely limited his offensive footprint, passing up open catch-and-shoot opportunities. This lack of aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. A quiet night on the hustle charts further highlighted a passive stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0