Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 182 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Holiday Hard 13/19 +14.8
Grant 11/19 +3.3
Williams III Open 9/12 +4.1
Camara 4/12 -5.8
Henderson Hard 3/11 -4.1
Clingan Open 3/6 -1.4
Cissoko 2/5 -2.0
Krejčí Hard 1/5 -2.2
Wesley 2/3 +2.6
Thybulle 0/3 -3.4

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jackson 8/18 -1.7
Wells Hard 8/15 +4.6
Prosper 5/13 -2.9
Spencer 4/10 -0.7
Small Hard 4/10 -1.2
Mashack Hard 5/8 +4.7
Clayton Jr. 3/7 -1.6
Rupert Hard 2/6 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
MEM
48/95 Field Goals 39/87
50.5% Field Goal % 44.8%
15/43 3-Pointers 14/32
34.9% 3-Point % 43.8%
11/18 Free Throws 22/33
61.1% Free Throw % 66.7%
59.3% True Shooting % 56.1%
61 Total Rebounds 52
20 Offensive 13
33 Defensive 25
29 Assists 25
1.71 Assist/TO Ratio 1.47
16 Turnovers 17
10 Steals 12
11 Blocks 6
22 Fouls 23
62 Points in Paint 46
12 Fast Break Pts 16
23 Points off TOs 13
23 Second Chance Pts 15
33 Bench Points 37
11 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jrue Holiday
35 PTS · 5 REB · 11 AST · 31.9 MIN
+34.44
2
Robert Williams III
20 PTS · 11 REB · 0 AST · 23.5 MIN
+25.37
3
Jerami Grant
30 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 36.0 MIN
+23.02
4
Jaylen Wells
24 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 31.2 MIN
+19.45
5
Cam Spencer
12 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 28.2 MIN
+13.89
6
Olivier-Maxence Prosper
17 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 33.2 MIN
+12.89
7
Donovan Clingan
7 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 12.4 MIN
+12.83
8
Javon Small
11 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 32.6 MIN
+10.45
9
GG Jackson
20 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 33.8 MIN
+9.95
10
Walter Clayton Jr.
12 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 27.4 MIN
+8.12
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 J. Grant REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 122–114
Q4 0:05 MISS G. Jackson 30' 3PT 122–114
Q4 0:10 J. Wells STEAL (2 STL) 122–114
Q4 0:10 J. Grant bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 122–114
Q4 0:12 G. Jackson 25' 3PT step back (20 PTS) 122–114
Q4 0:25 J. Holiday 6' floating Jump Shot (35 PTS) (T. Camara 3 AST) 122–111
Q4 0:37 V. Krejčí REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 120–111
Q4 0:41 MISS S. Henderson 24' 3PT 120–111
Q4 1:01 J. Wells Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 120–111
Q4 1:01 J. Wells Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 120–110
Q4 1:01 T. Camara shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Wells 2 FT) 120–109
Q4 1:05 R. Rupert REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 120–109
Q4 1:09 MISS J. Grant 9' turnaround fadeaway Shot 120–109
Q4 1:27 S. Cissoko REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 120–109
Q4 1:32 MISS O. Prosper 27' 3PT 120–109

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 GG Jackson 33.8m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-volume, low-efficiency isolation attempts severely disrupted the team's offensive flow. While his on-ball defensive pressure yielded solid returns, the sheer number of forced, contested mid-range jumpers dragged his net impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
17
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

A dip in finishing around the basket turned what could have been a dominant outing into a slightly negative showing. He remained highly active on the glass and maintained solid defensive rotations, but failing to convert on several high-value paint touches limited his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Javon Small 32.6m
11
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.9

Stifling point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's rhythm, but his own offensive execution left much to be desired. Clanking several wide-open perimeter looks neutralized the value he created on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rayan Rupert 32.2m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Offensive struggles continue to plague his profile, as hesitant decision-making and bricked open looks stalled out multiple possessions. He fought hard through screens to generate excellent defensive metrics, but the total lack of scoring punch ultimately sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 31.2m
24
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Capitalized brilliantly on defensive breakdowns with decisive catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter. This massive scoring spike provided crucial floor spacing, allowing him to post a strong positive impact despite a relatively quiet night in the hustle categories.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 28.2m
12
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.2

Steady connective passing and timely off-ball cuts kept the offensive engine humming during his shifts. He managed to stay slightly in the green by hitting just enough momentum-swinging perimeter shots to offset a few defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.1

Over-ambitious playmaking attempts likely led to empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent, damaging his net rating. Even though he facilitated well in stretches, a lack of scoring aggression and subpar point-of-attack defense allowed the opposition to capitalize on his mistakes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Sizzling spot-up shooting from the corners punished defensive rotations, yet his overall impact slipped into the negative. A complete lack of resistance at the point of attack allowed opponents to blow by him, erasing the value of his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 39.7m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Perimeter spacing completely collapsed with a disastrous blanking from beyond the arc. Despite generating excellent defensive metrics and strong hustle numbers, his inability to capitalize on open catch-and-shoot opportunities severely dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 36.0m
30
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.5

A massive scoring surge relative to his recent baseline fueled an elite offensive contribution. Efficient shot creation from the mid-post and perimeter drove the offense, while steady defensive positioning ensured his scoring volume translated into a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +22.2
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 31.9m
35
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+32.1

Absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency, headlined by scorching perimeter shot-making that broke the opponent's defensive scheme. His ability to perfectly balance high-volume scoring with elite point-of-attack defense resulted in a staggering box contribution.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 8/11 (72.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +30.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +10.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Scoot Henderson 24.3m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.2

Poor shot selection and forced drives into traffic cratered his offensive value. Although he remained engaged with active hands to generate positive hustle metrics, his severe regression in scoring efficiency bled away crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 12.4m
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Elite rim protection in a highly condensed window defined this dominant stint. He completely walled off the paint to disrupt opponent drive-and-kick actions, turning a brief rotation into a massive defensive advantage.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +10.5
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
20
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+20.1

Unrelenting vertical spacing and elite pick-and-roll finishing completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. He paired this offensive explosion with terrifying weak-side rim protection, anchoring the paint to generate a massive defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +13.0
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 22.2m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

Relentless motor on loose balls and aggressive rebounding in traffic drove a highly effective glue-guy performance. He didn't demand touches but consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter, turning his sheer energy into a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Offensive invisibility plagued his minutes, as he routinely passed up advantage situations or misfired on the few perimeter looks he took. A fundamentally sound defensive rotation pattern kept him from being a complete liability, but the lack of scoring gravity hurt the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Blake Wesley 15.8m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

High-energy closeouts and loose ball recoveries highlighted a brief but active stint on the floor. While his spot-up shooting was flawless when called upon, a lack of overall offensive involvement kept his net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.0

Complete offensive zero who allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. His usually disruptive perimeter defense failed to materialize enough steals or deflections to justify keeping his stagnant offensive presence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1