Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 177 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Grant 7/17 -2.9
Holiday 10/15 +7.9
Clingan Open 8/12 +0.2
Love Hard 4/12 -0.6
Camara Hard 5/9 +3.7
Krejčí Hard 4/9 +0.5
Henderson Hard 4/6 +3.6
Cissoko 3/4 +2.0
Rupert Hard 1/4 -1.6
Wesley Hard 0/1 -1.1

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Sensabaugh Hard 8/19 +3.7
Bailey 7/15 -0.9
Filipowski 6/9 +2.5
Williams 4/9 -1.8
Mykhailiuk Hard 5/8 +5.5
Collier 3/8 -1.6
Hinson Hard 4/7 +3.5
Konchar 2/7 -4.5
Williams Jr. 3/5 +1.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
UTA
46/90 Field Goals 42/87
51.1% Field Goal % 48.3%
18/46 3-Pointers 14/38
39.1% 3-Point % 36.8%
25/33 Free Throws 21/29
75.8% Free Throw % 72.4%
64.6% True Shooting % 59.6%
59 Total Rebounds 46
19 Offensive 12
33 Defensive 26
26 Assists 28
1.24 Assist/TO Ratio 1.47
19 Turnovers 19
7 Steals 15
7 Blocks 3
23 Fouls 27
52 Points in Paint 48
14 Fast Break Pts 24
27 Points off TOs 23
23 Second Chance Pts 12
41 Bench Points 37
19 Largest Lead 6
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Donovan Clingan
23 PTS · 18 REB · 7 AST · 31.4 MIN
+34.41
2
Jrue Holiday
31 PTS · 9 REB · 7 AST · 33.0 MIN
+32.29
3
Kyle Filipowski
15 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 29.6 MIN
+22.44
4
John Konchar
6 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 25.1 MIN
+15.25
5
Brice Sensabaugh
28 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 35.5 MIN
+14.8
6
Svi Mykhailiuk
14 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 17.5 MIN
+10.26
7
Sidy Cissoko
8 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 30.0 MIN
+10.19
8
Vít Krejčí
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 25.5 MIN
+9.15
9
Isaiah Collier
15 PTS · 2 REB · 9 AST · 36.1 MIN
+7.78
10
Toumani Camara
14 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 29.0 MIN
+7.04
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 POR shot clock Team TURNOVER 135–119
Q4 0:34 B. Sensabaugh Free Throw 1 of 1 (28 PTS) 135–119
Q4 0:34 J. Cooke shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Sensabaugh 1 FT) 135–118
Q4 0:34 B. Sensabaugh pullup Jump Shot (27 PTS) 135–118
Q4 0:50 S. Cissoko Free Throw 1 of 1 (8 PTS) 135–116
Q4 0:50 I. Collier shooting personal FOUL (6 PF) (Cissoko 1 FT) 134–116
Q4 0:50 S. Cissoko running Layup (7 PTS) (T. Camara 3 AST) 134–116
Q4 0:55 J. Grant STEAL (1 STL) 132–116
Q4 0:55 B. Sensabaugh lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 132–116
Q4 1:07 J. Holiday 16' pullup Jump Shot (31 PTS) 132–116
Q4 1:25 A. Bailey traveling TURNOVER (4 TO) 130–116
Q4 1:42 T. Camara 24' 3PT (14 PTS) (J. Holiday 7 AST) 130–116
Q4 2:04 T. Camara REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 127–116
Q4 2:06 MISS B. Sensabaugh Free Throw 2 of 2 127–116
Q4 2:06 B. Sensabaugh Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 127–116

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

UTA Utah Jazz
S Isaiah Collier 36.1m
15
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.4

A brutal lack of scoring efficiency and likely high turnover rate decimated his net impact, despite impressive playmaking numbers. Driving into traffic repeatedly resulted in empty possessions or transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to keep the defense honest with his own shot clogged the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
28
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.1

Scorching hot shooting from the perimeter fueled a heavy offensive burden, stretching the defense past its breaking point. His constant off-ball movement generated a stellar hustle rating that translated directly into second-chance opportunities. This high-volume scoring barrage carried the second unit through multiple stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 34.7m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Poor perimeter efficiency and likely turnover woes undermined a game where he otherwise competed hard defensively. Settling for contested long-range jumpers short-circuited several promising offensive possessions. His inability to finish through contact negated his solid defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Filipowski 29.6m
15
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.9

Elite defensive positioning anchored the frontcourt, more than making up for a slight dip in his usual scoring dominance. He consistently disrupted pick-and-roll actions, forcing ball-handlers into tough, contested floaters. Continuing his streak of highly efficient shooting, he picked his spots perfectly within the flow of the offense.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +6.6
Defense +10.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 24.7m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

A sharp drop in scoring aggression left the offense searching for answers, as he repeatedly passed up open looks. While his defensive metrics remained respectable, his hesitancy to attack the basket allowed defenders to cheat off him. This passive approach severely cramped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
John Konchar 25.1m
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.7

Gritty defensive rebounding and timely weak-side rotations defined a highly impactful glue-guy performance. He didn't need to score to control the game, instead using his physicality to deny entry passes and secure loose balls. A textbook example of how to influence winning without dominating the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense +6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
Blake Hinson 24.8m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Disastrous defensive execution and a cooling off from his recent hot streak resulted in a heavily negative overall impact. Opponents aggressively targeted him in isolation, exposing his slow lateral movement. While he hit a few deep shots, he gave back significantly more points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Lethal catch-and-shoot execution punished defensive rotations, continuing his trend of hyper-efficient floor spacing. His quick trigger from deep forced closeouts that opened up driving lanes for teammates. Solid positional defense ensured his offensive contributions weren't wasted.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Efficient finishing in transition wasn't quite enough to overcome slight defensive miscommunications during his short stint. He capitalized on his few offensive touches but struggled to navigate screens on the other end. A largely neutral shift that neither helped nor hurt the overall game plan.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

Managed to stay slightly positive through quick ball movement and setting solid screens during a very brief cameo. His streak of efficient scoring ended simply due to a lack of minutes and touches. He operated purely as a connective piece in his limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +88.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jrue Holiday 33.0m
31
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+30.9

Masterful offensive execution drove a stellar box score impact, as he picked apart defensive coverages with surgical precision. Stepping up his scoring volume significantly above his recent average, he capitalized on mismatches in the mid-range. His steadying presence during crucial offensive sets ensured high-quality looks every time down the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +26.3
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +11.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 32.8m
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc cratered his offensive efficiency, negating a relatively sturdy defensive effort. Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock repeatedly stalled the team's momentum. His inability to find a rhythm effectively handed the opponent extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 31.4m
23
pts
18
reb
7
ast
Impact
+38.2

Utterly dominated the interior, anchoring a massive defensive rating while exploding for an uncharacteristic offensive surge. His sheer size neutralized opposing drivers, creating a wall at the rim that fueled fast breaks. This breakout performance showcased a sudden, aggressive post-up game that the defense simply could not solve.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +4.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +21.9
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 30.0m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Massive hustle metrics completely flipped his usual baseline, driving a surprisingly positive impact despite limited touches. His sudden scoring burst provided unexpected secondary offense that kept the defense honest. Relentless off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries defined his floor-spacing value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Toumani Camara 29.0m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite solid perimeter shooting and active hands, defensive lapses or hidden negative plays dragged his overall impact slightly below neutral. He struggled to replicate his recent scoring rhythm, settling for shots that allowed the defense to set up. A failure to capitalize on transition opportunities ultimately muted his otherwise solid hustle numbers.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +7.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Perimeter shooting provided a spark, but defensive rotations were frequently a step slow, bleeding points on the other end. He found success spotting up, yet struggled to contain dribble penetration when isolated. The resulting defensive breakdowns offset the value of his offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.0

Hidden mistakes and likely turnover issues tanked his overall impact despite decent shooting splits. He struggled to orchestrate the half-court offense, leading to stagnant possessions and forced actions. A lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.9
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
Rayan Rupert 15.7m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Offensive invisibility severely limited his usefulness, as he failed to punish defenders who sagged off him. While his length contributed to decent hustle and defensive metrics, the complete lack of scoring gravity allowed opponents to double-team elsewhere. He essentially operated as an offensive liability during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Love 14.7m
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

A massive spike in scoring aggression yielded mixed results, as high-volume, low-efficiency shooting dragged down his overall net rating. While he hit a few timely deep balls, the sheer number of empty possessions hurt the team's offensive rhythm. His tunnel vision on offense prevented better looks for teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Completely ineffective in limited action, failing to generate any positive momentum on either end. Rushed his only shot attempts and offered zero resistance defensively. This brief, empty stint actively hurt the team's transition defense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -171.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Barely registered an impact during a brief stint, looking out of sync with the offensive flow. A quick missed shot and lack of defensive presence highlighted a forgettable appearance. He failed to establish any physical leverage in the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -104.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Garbage time minutes yielded nothing of substance, with a slight defensive negative marking his only statistical footprint. He simply ran the floor without engaging in the play. A true non-factor in every sense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0