Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Bailey Hard 8/19 -1.1
Collier 9/16 +4.0
Filipowski Open 9/13 +3.9
Sensabaugh Hard 4/12 -2.1
Williams 2/9 -6.3
Williams Jr. Hard 2/7 -1.0
Hinson 5/6 +6.2
Konchar 3/6 -1.3
Love Hard 2/2 +3.8
Tshiebwe Open 1/2 -0.3

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Prosper Open 10/16 +1.3
Wells Hard 4/14 -3.3
Jackson 7/13 +0.3
Small Hard 5/12 -0.1
Hendricks 4/11 -3.9
Mashack 4/9 +0.4
Lovering Open 5/8 -0.2
Spencer Hard 3/5 +2.5
Anderson Hard 3/4 +3.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
MEM
46/93 Field Goals 45/92
49.5% Field Goal % 48.9%
13/34 3-Pointers 12/33
38.2% 3-Point % 36.4%
9/16 Free Throws 21/33
56.2% Free Throw % 63.6%
57.0% True Shooting % 57.7%
58 Total Rebounds 55
12 Offensive 11
37 Defensive 34
28 Assists 29
1.17 Assist/TO Ratio 1.71
24 Turnovers 17
11 Steals 15
6 Blocks 6
24 Fouls 16
56 Points in Paint 66
23 Fast Break Pts 11
18 Points off TOs 30
9 Second Chance Pts 15
39 Bench Points 59
14 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Isaiah Collier
24 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 24.9 MIN
+19.54
2
Javon Small
16 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 29.4 MIN
+18.36
3
Olivier-Maxence Prosper
23 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 29.6 MIN
+15.89
4
Cam Spencer
10 PTS · 3 REB · 10 AST · 20.7 MIN
+15.79
5
Kyle Filipowski
20 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 28.2 MIN
+15.19
6
John Konchar
6 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 30.9 MIN
+14.5
7
Blake Hinson
13 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 16.1 MIN
+13.63
8
Lawson Lovering
11 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 31.7 MIN
+13.55
9
Taylor Hendricks
9 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 24.5 MIN
+10.16
10
GG Jackson
20 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 27.9 MIN
+9.58
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 J. Mashack REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 114–123
Q4 0:05 MISS I. Collier 27' pullup 3PT 114–123
Q4 0:10 J. Small Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 114–123
Q4 0:10 J. Small Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 114–122
Q4 0:10 I. Collier take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Small 2 FT) 114–121
Q4 0:10 J. Small STEAL (4 STL) 114–121
Q4 0:10 K. Filipowski bad pass TURNOVER (5 TO) 114–121
Q4 0:12 J. Small Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 114–121
Q4 0:12 J. Small Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 114–120
Q4 0:12 K. Filipowski take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Small 2 FT) 114–119
Q4 0:17 A. Bailey Free Throw 3 of 3 (20 PTS) 114–119
Q4 0:17 A. Bailey Free Throw 2 of 3 (19 PTS) 113–119
Q4 0:17 TEAM offensive REBOUND 112–119
Q4 0:17 MISS A. Bailey Free Throw 1 of 3 112–119
Q4 0:17 O. Prosper shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Bailey 3 FT) 112–119

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
S Lawson Lovering 31.7m
11
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

Anchoring the paint with a strong physical presence generated highly efficient looks around the basket. Sealing off defenders early in the possession allowed for easy entry passes and high-percentage finishes. This methodical interior approach steadily built a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +14.0
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jahmai Mashack 31.4m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Fantastic defensive metrics were entirely undone by offensive spacing issues and empty possessions. The inability to capitalize on the other end allowed opponents to ignore him on the perimeter and pack the paint. This offensive stagnation negated all the value created by his point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -8.2
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S GG Jackson 27.9m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Sloppy ball security and defensive lapses in transition completely erased the value of his scoring output. Giving up easy run-out layups after live-ball mistakes created a negative swing that the half-court offense couldn't overcome. A lack of situational awareness during fast-break defense defined his surprisingly poor rating.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -7.1
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 26.8m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite hustle metrics and defensive tenacity completely masked a horrific shooting performance. Chasing down loose balls and blowing up passing lanes created enough chaos to offset his offensive struggles. His relentless ball pressure against opposing guards was the defining factor that kept his rating positive.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Overcame a brutal shooting night by dominating the margins with relentless positional defense. Willingness to crash the glass and contest shots at the rim salvaged his overall value. His high-motor closeouts on perimeter shooters kept him firmly in the green despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Abandoning the three-point line to relentlessly attack the rim resulted in a stellar offensive rating. Finishing through contact and punishing smaller defenders in the paint dictated the tempo of the game. This aggressive downhill mentality was the clear driver behind his massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +17.8
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -7.1
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Javon Small 29.4m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.7

Absolute dominance on the defensive end fueled a massive positive swing. Smothering ball pressure and active hands completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm, generating multiple empty trips. This elite defensive clinic easily overshadowed a mediocre shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +9.7
Turnovers -4.7
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
Cam Spencer 20.7m
10
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+6.2

Masterful offensive orchestration and precise playmaking tore the opposing defense apart. Manipulating pick-and-roll coverages to find open cutters generated exceptionally high-quality looks for the entire unit. Prioritizing distribution over his own shot fueled one of the highest impact scores on the roster.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Smart, methodical decision-making in the half-court kept the offense humming without forcing the issue. Operating as a crucial release valve against pressure, his precise reads stabilized the unit. This low-volume, high-efficiency approach perfectly illustrates his subtle but positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 38.0m
5
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

A complete inability to find an offensive rhythm resulted in a disastrous rating drop. Passive decision-making against aggressive closeouts led to forced, late-clock attempts that consistently bailed out the defense. His lack of rim pressure made him a glaring liability on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -10.2
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ace Bailey 32.8m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

Inefficient perimeter volume severely undercut his overall value despite decent activity levels. Forcing contested looks from beyond the arc stalled out offensive momentum during crucial second-half stretches. The sheer number of empty possessions ultimately dragged his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -5.9
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S John Konchar 30.9m
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.9

Defensive disruption and relentless energy completely overshadowed a quiet scoring night. Generating extra possessions through timely deflections and hard closeouts created a massive swing in momentum. His willingness to execute the dirty work against primary scorers kept his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +9.5
Turnovers -4.7
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 28.2m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Elite shot selection and a relentless approach in the paint anchored a highly efficient performance. Establishing deep post position early in the shot clock allowed him to dictate terms against smaller defenders. This sustained interior dominance perfectly explains his massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.3
Turnovers -10.6
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
S Isaiah Collier 24.9m
24
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.0

A masterful blend of downhill rim pressure and stifling point-of-attack defense fueled a dominant two-way showing. Consistently beating his primary defender off the dribble forced defensive collapses that opened up the entire floor. Elite finishing in traffic cemented his status as the primary offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +18.0
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +8.0
Turnovers -9.5
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 4
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.1

Clunky offensive execution and a step-slow defensive rotation resulted in a deeply negative impact score. Missing highly contested looks in traffic consistently fueled opponent transition opportunities. Failing to contain dribble penetration compounded the damage on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.5

Forced isolation attempts against set defenses completely derailed his overall efficiency. Settling for heavily contested midrange jumpers instead of moving the ball effectively killed several offensive runs. This pattern of poor shot selection was the primary anchor dragging down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Blake Hinson 16.1m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Flawless execution as a floor spacer maximized his value in limited minutes. Punishing defensive rotations with decisive catch-and-shoot daggers completely altered the geometry of the court. He provided the exact type of low-maintenance offensive gravity that elevates secondary units.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Failing to establish any physical presence inside led to a surprisingly negative stint. Defensive lapses in drop coverage allowed easy floaters, while an inability to seal defenders on the block rendered him invisible offensively. This lack of engagement resulted in a steep drop-off from his usual standard.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense -5.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

A brief, unimpactful rotation stint failed to generate any measurable positive momentum. Struggling to integrate into the half-court flow, his presence allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. The lack of offensive gravity ultimately made him a net negative during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 5.2m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Instant offense off the bench provided a massive, immediate jolt to the unit's spacing. Perfect execution on pick-and-pop actions punished the defense for dropping too deep into the paint. His veteran savvy in finding soft spots on the perimeter maximized his brief cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0