Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead MEM lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MEM 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 166 attempts

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jerome Hard 8/14 +5.3
Hendricks 5/14 -3.7
Mashack Open 8/10 +5.1
Small Hard 3/9 -0.6
Wells 3/8 -3.6
Pippen Jr. 5/6 +4.6
Caldwell-Pope Hard 3/6 +1.5
Spencer Hard 1/6 -3.7
Anderson 3/4 +2.0
Jackson 2/4 +0.8

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Podziemski 7/15 -1.3
Spencer 8/13 +3.3
Horford Open 7/12 +0.4
Melton 3/11 -5.5
Santos 7/10 +3.3
Payton II 3/9 -2.9
Green Hard 5/7 +6.4
Moody 3/5 +1.4
Richard Hard 1/1 +1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MEM
GSW
42/83 Field Goals 44/83
50.6% Field Goal % 53.0%
10/32 3-Pointers 11/33
31.2% 3-Point % 33.3%
19/24 Free Throws 15/19
79.2% Free Throw % 78.9%
60.4% True Shooting % 62.4%
47 Total Rebounds 44
8 Offensive 10
29 Defensive 30
26 Assists 31
1.44 Assist/TO Ratio 1.35
16 Turnovers 23
17 Steals 12
3 Blocks 1
18 Fouls 17
52 Points in Paint 60
17 Fast Break Pts 11
23 Points off TOs 20
10 Second Chance Pts 14
68 Bench Points 42
17 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Al Horford
16 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 26.3 MIN
+22.79
2
Ty Jerome
19 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 19.9 MIN
+19.9
3
Scotty Pippen Jr.
11 PTS · 0 REB · 4 AST · 20.2 MIN
+17.37
4
Taylor Hendricks
15 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 24.5 MIN
+15.77
5
Pat Spencer
17 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 31.7 MIN
+15.28
6
Jahmai Mashack
17 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 22.0 MIN
+13.69
7
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
15 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 21.6 MIN
+12.55
8
Brandin Podziemski
16 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 31.9 MIN
+12.33
9
Moses Moody
15 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 27.7 MIN
+12.05
10
Gary Payton II
7 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 23.7 MIN
+11.56
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 A. Horford STEAL (1 STL) 113–114
Q4 0:02 C. Spencer bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 113–114
Q4 0:04 C. Spencer REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 113–114
Q4 0:06 MISS J. Mashack driving Layup 113–114
Q4 0:19 G. Santos driving Layup (16 PTS) (A. Horford 6 AST) 113–114
Q4 0:23 A. Horford REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 113–112
Q4 0:23 MISS A. Horford tip Layup 113–112
Q4 0:23 A. Horford REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 113–112
Q4 0:25 MISS A. Horford driving Layup 113–112
Q4 0:44 MEM shot clock Team TURNOVER 113–112
Q4 0:44 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–112
Q4 0:44 MISS J. Small 33' 3PT 113–112
Q4 1:06 G. Jackson REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 113–112
Q4 1:09 MISS D. Melton 29' pullup bank 3PT 113–112
Q4 1:25 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–112

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Pat Spencer 31.7m
17
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.4

A surprisingly aggressive mindset driving to the basket unlocked a scoring surge that far exceeded his recent output. He consistently broke down the first line of defense, collapsing the paint to create high-quality looks for himself and others. Solid defensive metrics supported the offensive breakout, though a few forced passes in traffic capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Gui Santos 29.8m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Continued his streak of highly efficient shooting by feasting on off-ball cuts and transition leak-outs. However, his overall impact was muted by a few costly defensive lapses that allowed uncontested drives to the rim. While the scoring efficiency was superb, a failure to string together consecutive stops kept his net rating barely above water.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moses Moody 27.7m
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

A sharp decline in overall usage from his previous explosive outing limited his ability to dominate the game flow. He remained highly efficient with the touches he received, utilizing strong pump fakes to draw fouls and generate easy offense. Solid defensive positioning and timely hustle plays kept his baseline impact positive, even if the sheer volume was missing.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 83.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

A brutal shooting slump continued as he repeatedly clanked open perimeter looks, destroying the team's offensive spacing. Opposing defenses actively ignored him on the weak side, allowing them to overload the paint and stifle driving lanes. While he provided some resistance at the point of attack, the offensive dead weight severely punished his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Draymond Green 23.6m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

An uncharacteristically hot shooting night from the perimeter masked underlying issues with offensive flow and spacing. His negative overall impact stems from defensive miscommunications and late rotations that surrendered high-value looks to the opposition. Despite the scoring bump, his inability to anchor the defense in crucial stretches proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.5

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc nearly derailed an otherwise productive shift, as he settled for contested pull-ups early in the clock. He salvaged his rating through sheer effort, generating extra possessions via offensive rebounds and diving for loose balls. The relentless hustle offset the clunky shooting mechanics, keeping him marginally in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 26.3m
16
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+20.7

Veteran savvy and impeccable spatial awareness anchored a dominant two-way performance. He dismantled switching defenses by punishing mismatches in the post and executing flawless dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. His elite positional defense deterred drives and secured the paint, driving a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Elite point-of-attack harassment and disruptive hustle plays defined his highly impactful stint, completely blowing up opposing offensive sets. Despite a sharp regression in his finishing around the rim, his defensive gravity created transition opportunities that swung momentum. He proved that his value isn't tied to scoring volume, anchoring the perimeter defense with relentless energy.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Richard 14.9m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

Extreme passivity on offense and glaring defensive liabilities combined to produce a disastrous net rating in limited action. He was routinely targeted in pick-and-roll actions, failing to fight through screens and giving up straight-line drives. The complete lack of hustle plays or offensive initiative rendered his minutes highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.4

A brief, invisible stint on the floor yielded a negative rating due to a complete lack of offensive involvement. He failed to register a single shot attempt, merely acting as a passive ball-mover on the perimeter. The inability to leverage his size or create any gravitational pull allowed the defense to comfortably pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Kyle Anderson 26.0m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Elite defensive positioning and high-level hustle metrics completely salvaged a quiet scoring night. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions as a weakside helper, generating crucial stops that don't show up in traditional stats. This veteran savvy kept his impact solidly positive despite minimal offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
S Jaylen Wells 25.9m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Despite an uptick in scoring volume compared to recent outings, a lack of perimeter efficiency dragged down his overall impact. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag, stalling offensive momentum during key half-court possessions. A slightly negative defensive rating further compounded the damage from empty trips.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S GG Jackson 23.5m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

A stark drop-off in aggression from his usual high-volume role left a massive void in the second unit's scoring punch. He struggled to find his spots against physical perimeter coverage, resulting in a passive offensive showing that cratered his net value. The minimal shot attempts highlight a concerning inability to create separation when heavily scouted.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ty Jerome 19.9m
19
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.2

Masterful orchestration of the offense drove a massive positive rating, as he consistently punished drop coverage with timely floaters. Even with a few misfires from deep, his ability to dictate the tempo and limit live-ball mistakes kept the offensive engine humming. Strong point-of-attack defense added another layer of value to a highly efficient two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 11.8m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Limited minutes and a drastic reduction in offensive involvement resulted in a near-neutral overall rating. He failed to establish any rhythm during his brief rotational stints, mostly floating on the perimeter rather than attacking closeouts. Solid defensive execution kept him from being a liability, but the lack of scoring punch was a glaring departure from his recent form.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

Heavy volume and poor shot selection from beyond the arc suppressed what could have been a dominant statistical night. However, his relentless activity on the glass and switchability on the defensive end kept his overall impact firmly in the green. Bouncing back from a recent slump, his sheer energy compensated for the clunky shooting mechanics.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 23.9m
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.3

A disastrous shooting performance completely tanked his value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, turning his offensive struggles into a defensive liability. Unable to find the range, his floor-spacing gravity evaporated and clogged the paint for slashers.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Exceptional finishing at the rim drove a highly efficient scoring surge that easily outpaced his recent averages. He thrived as a cutter, consistently exploiting back-door lanes when defenders turned their heads. High-level hustle plays and solid defensive rotations ensured his offensive outburst translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Efficient scoring opportunities generated from drawing contact kept his offensive impact afloat despite a low volume of field goal attempts. However, a surprising lack of hustle plays and relatively quiet defensive metrics limited his overall ceiling. He played a stabilizing role, but the lack of disruptive off-ball activity kept his net rating modest.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Javon Small 20.6m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Inefficient finishing inside the arc dragged his rating slightly into the negative, stalling out several promising half-court sets. While he managed to knock down a couple of perimeter looks, his inability to convert in traffic negated those gains. Strong defensive metrics prevented a steeper drop, but the offensive regression from his recent hot streak was evident.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Surgical shot selection and relentless defensive pressure fueled a spectacular plus-minus showing. He refused to settle for bad looks, instead probing the paint to generate high-percentage finishes or kick-outs. Elite hustle metrics reflect a tireless effort navigating screens, completely disrupting the opposing backcourt's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1