Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Edwards 13/27 -2.3
McDaniels 11/14 +11.1
Randle 5/14 -4.0
Reid Hard 4/12 -3.0
DiVincenzo Hard 7/9 +9.5
Gobert Open 3/5 -0.8
Hyland Hard 1/4 -1.4
Conley Hard 0/3 -2.8
Clark 0/2 -2.2

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jackson Jr. 8/17 +1.0
Jerome Hard 6/10 +4.1
Coward 5/10 +0.5
Jackson Open 6/10 +0.3
Wells Hard 6/9 +7.0
Spencer Hard 4/9 +1.9
Williams Jr. Hard 4/7 +4.3
Landale Hard 2/7 -3.0
Caldwell-Pope 2/6 -3.0
Prosper 1/3 -0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
MEM
44/90 Field Goals 44/88
48.9% Field Goal % 50.0%
16/41 3-Pointers 19/41
39.0% 3-Point % 46.3%
24/31 Free Throws 30/35
77.4% Free Throw % 85.7%
61.8% True Shooting % 66.2%
50 Total Rebounds 56
13 Offensive 12
27 Defensive 33
24 Assists 31
2.67 Assist/TO Ratio 3.10
9 Turnovers 9
4 Steals 5
7 Blocks 2
25 Fouls 22
54 Points in Paint 42
14 Fast Break Pts 10
9 Points off TOs 13
22 Second Chance Pts 24
13 Bench Points 52
6 Largest Lead 20
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaden McDaniels
29 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 36.8 MIN
+29.06
2
Anthony Edwards
39 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 39.7 MIN
+24.95
3
Donte DiVincenzo
21 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 33.7 MIN
+23.23
4
Jaren Jackson Jr.
30 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 31.0 MIN
+23.14
5
Ty Jerome
19 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 20.4 MIN
+17.27
6
Vince Williams Jr.
16 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 22.5 MIN
+16.62
7
Jaylen Wells
18 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 25.7 MIN
+13.46
8
GG Jackson
13 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 21.2 MIN
+13.34
9
Cam Spencer
16 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 25.1 MIN
+12.9
10
Julius Randle
19 PTS · 8 REB · 8 AST · 40.2 MIN
+10.16
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 128–137
Q4 0:00 MIN Heave 128–137
Q4 0:01 MEM shot clock Team TURNOVER 128–137
Q4 0:24 A. Edwards driving finger roll Layup (39 PTS) 128–137
Q4 0:32 T. Jerome Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 126–137
Q4 0:32 TEAM offensive REBOUND 126–136
Q4 0:32 MISS T. Jerome Free Throw 1 of 2 126–136
Q4 0:32 D. DiVincenzo take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Jerome 2 FT) 126–136
Q4 0:33 J. McDaniels driving finger roll Layup (29 PTS) 126–136
Q4 0:37 C. Coward Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 124–136
Q4 0:37 C. Coward Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 124–135
Q4 0:37 D. DiVincenzo take personal FOUL (1 PF) (Coward 2 FT) 124–134
Q4 0:51 N. Reid 26' 3PT (10 PTS) (J. McDaniels 3 AST) 124–134
Q4 0:56 D. DiVincenzo REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 121–134
Q4 0:59 MISS A. Edwards 25' pullup 3PT 121–134

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
30
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.9

Dominated the interior matchups to fuel a massive +23.6 box impact. His ability to stretch the floor while maintaining consistent rim deterrence (+1.5 Def) created a nightmare assignment for opposing bigs.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +23.2
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jock Landale 28.3m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Strong positional defense (+4.0) was completely overshadowed by clunky offensive execution that sank his total impact to -6.8. Fumbled entry passes and blown layups around the basket short-circuited multiple half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 27.7m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite solid baseline metrics and decent defensive activity (+1.8), hidden negative plays pulled his total impact into the red (-4.9). Late closeouts and poorly timed fouls allowed the opposition to generate easy momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 25.7m
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Blistering perimeter efficiency drove a strong +14.6 box score, but defensive lapses (-0.8) and off-ball tracking issues dragged his net impact to neutral. He consistently punished drop coverage from deep, though he gave much of it back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 20.4m
19
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.5

Masterful orchestration of the second unit drove a robust +8.6 total impact rating. His decisive dribble penetration and active hands in the passing lanes (+3.0 Hustle) kept the offense humming seamlessly.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Spencer 25.1m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.7

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to boost his box score, but struggled with off-ball physicality, resulting in a slightly negative net impact. Opposing guards targeted him in isolation, neutralizing his offensive spacing value.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.1

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+4.8) and lethal corner spacing generated an elite +8.2 total impact score. He completely derailed the opponent's primary actions while punishing them for helping off the strong side.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 21.2m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

High-level defensive rotations (+4.7) anchored a highly productive stint off the bench. He utilized his length perfectly to blow up dribble hand-offs, translating defensive stops into efficient transition finishes.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.9

A severe lack of offensive rhythm and uncharacteristic defensive missteps (-1.0) resulted in a team-worst -11.9 total impact. Getting caught on back-screens repeatedly compromised the defensive shell during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Transitioned into a pure utility role, using his length to generate a +3.8 defensive impact despite a stark drop in offensive usage. His willingness to do the dirty work on the glass kept his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 40.2m
19
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.1

Inefficient shot selection completely derailed his overall impact (-8.7) despite bringing solid energy on the margins (+3.1 Hustle). Settling for contested looks from beyond the arc snapped a streak of highly efficient offensive outings.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Anthony Edwards 39.7m
39
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+27.6

An aggressive downhill mentality snapped a recent scoring slump and generated a stellar +6.1 hustle rating. The sheer volume of his rim pressure forced defensive collapses, driving a highly productive +7.9 total impact score.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Scoring +25.6
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 36.8m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+24.8

Elite shooting efficiency fueled a massive +32.0 Box score, serving as the primary engine for his overall positive impact. His perimeter spacing punished late closeouts, though a negative defensive rating (-1.2) slightly capped his ceiling on the night.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +26.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.0

Exceptional two-way play defined this outing, pairing lethal perimeter efficiency with a suffocating +5.5 defensive rating. His ability to navigate screens and disrupt passing lanes perfectly complemented his spot-up spacing.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.6%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 25.1m
7
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Anchored the paint effectively to generate a strong +4.7 defensive impact, compensating for a significant drop in offensive volume. His rim deterrence altered multiple drives, allowing him to maintain a net-positive rating despite limited touches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +11.7
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Naz Reid 25.8m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Stellar interior rotations yielded a massive +8.1 defensive rating, but clunky offensive execution kept his total impact slightly in the red. Forced too many contested looks in the mid-range, continuing a recent trend of inefficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
Bones Hyland 16.6m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.4

Failed to provide his usual scoring punch off the bench, leading to a steep -6.4 total impact rating. His inability to create separation against secondary defenders neutralized his primary value as a spark-plug creator.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 14.3m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.5

A complete lack of offensive production cratered his overall impact score (-7.2) during a brief stint on the floor. While he provided marginal defensive stability, his inability to bend the defense as a ball-handler stalled out half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring -2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.3

Struggled to find the pace of the game, resulting in negative marks across both offensive and defensive metrics. Missed rotations on the perimeter compounded his empty offensive possessions during a rough seven-minute stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0