Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
POR lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
POR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Sensabaugh Hard 12/19 +11.8
Williams Open 7/17 -4.8
Collier 6/15 -2.9
Filipowski Hard 4/8 +2.4
Tshiebwe Open 4/8 -1.1
Harkless Hard 2/8 -2.9
Mbeng 2/8 -5.1
Garcia 2/6 -3.0
Bailey Hard 3/3 +5.0

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Holiday 10/16 +6.4
Henderson 8/14 +6.1
Clingan Open 7/12 -0.2
Cissoko 6/10 +2.2
Camara Hard 2/10 -5.7
Avdija Open 7/9 +3.2
Thybulle Hard 2/8 -2.7
Grant 3/5 +2.1
Krejčí 1/3 -1.6
Murray Hard 0/2 -1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
POR
42/92 Field Goals 46/89
45.7% Field Goal % 51.7%
13/30 3-Pointers 17/46
43.3% 3-Point % 37.0%
17/22 Free Throws 15/16
77.3% Free Throw % 93.8%
56.1% True Shooting % 64.6%
47 Total Rebounds 52
10 Offensive 14
26 Defensive 35
28 Assists 34
1.56 Assist/TO Ratio 1.42
18 Turnovers 24
16 Steals 16
3 Blocks 12
17 Fouls 19
54 Points in Paint 56
30 Fast Break Pts 22
38 Points off TOs 28
10 Second Chance Pts 23
28 Bench Points 47
18 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Donovan Clingan
21 PTS · 15 REB · 2 AST · 35.1 MIN
+36.82
2
Brice Sensabaugh
31 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 29.3 MIN
+27.58
3
Jrue Holiday
25 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 32.0 MIN
+21.7
4
Deni Avdija
17 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 32.2 MIN
+16.48
5
Kyle Filipowski
11 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 24.9 MIN
+16.18
6
Sidy Cissoko
14 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 17.4 MIN
+14.26
7
Scoot Henderson
25 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 29.9 MIN
+13.73
8
Isaiah Collier
17 PTS · 3 REB · 9 AST · 29.8 MIN
+13.58
9
Ace Bailey
8 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 7.3 MIN
+11.25
10
Oscar Tshiebwe
8 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 20.0 MIN
+11.09
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:15 C. Williams Free Throw 1 of 1 (19 PTS) 114–124
Q4 0:15 B. Wesley shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Williams 1 FT) 113–124
Q4 0:15 C. Williams running DUNK (18 PTS) 113–124
Q4 0:18 C. Williams REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 111–124
Q4 0:22 MISS S. Cissoko 26' 3PT 111–124
Q4 0:44 S. Cissoko REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 111–124
Q4 0:48 MISS I. Collier 26' 3PT 111–124
Q4 0:48 T. Camara personal FOUL (5 PF) 111–124
Q4 0:54 D. Avdija running finger roll Layup (17 PTS) (J. Holiday 8 AST) 111–124
Q4 0:58 D. Clingan REBOUND (Off:5 Def:10) 111–122
Q4 0:59 MISS C. Williams driving Layup 111–122
Q4 1:07 D. Clingan alley-oop DUNK (21 PTS) (D. Avdija 8 AST) 111–122
Q4 1:22 A. Garcia personal FOUL (4 PF) 111–120
Q4 1:22 J. Holiday STEAL (1 STL) 111–120
Q4 1:22 I. Collier lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 111–120

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

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Donovan Clingan 35.0m
21
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+33.2

Absolute dominance in the paint drove a staggering +27.0 net impact, anchored by an impenetrable rim-protection clinic. He altered countless trajectories at the summit and vacuumed up contested boards to ignite the fast break. Offensively, his massive screen-setting freed up the guards and generated high-quality looks all night.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +16.1
Defense +8.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 3
BLK 6
TO 1
S Deni Avdija 32.2m
17
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.5

Highly efficient finishing at the rim was completely offset by a string of careless live-ball turnovers that fueled the opponent's transition attack. Despite reading the floor well defensively, his sloppy handle in traffic negated the value of his scoring output. The net-neutral result (-0.3) reflects a performance where brilliant flashes were erased by self-inflicted wounds.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jrue Holiday 32.0m
25
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.2

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll allowed him to dissect the drop coverage and maintain a steady positive impact (+4.3). He dictated the pace flawlessly, using his physical frame to bully smaller guards out of their preferred spots. Timely perimeter shot-making punished the defense every time they attempted to go under screens.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +20.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jerami Grant 25.3m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

A disastrous -15.7 total impact was fueled by severe defensive apathy and late rotations that surrendered wide-open corner threes. While his shot selection was highly efficient, his inability to navigate screens allowed his primary matchup to dictate the tempo all night. The team bled points in bunches during his stints because he failed to secure critical long rebounds.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 22.8m
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Brick after brick from beyond the arc dragged his net score into the negatives (-7.4) despite admirable defensive intensity. He repeatedly forced jumpers against set defenses rather than moving the ball to the weak side. Those wasted offensive possessions completely undermined his high-level closeouts and rotational awareness on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.8

Blistering perimeter shooting forced defenders to play him tight, opening up the rest of his offensive arsenal and driving a solid +3.0 impact. He weaponized his burst to collapse the paint, kicking out to shooters when the weak-side help committed. A few forced passes in the fourth quarter slightly capped his overall ceiling, but the aggressive rim pressure was exactly what the offense needed.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
Sidy Cissoko 17.4m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Relentless downhill attacking against second-unit bigs sparked a massive +8.9 impact in limited action. He consistently beat closeouts with decisive first steps, finishing through contact at the rim rather than settling for floaters. His physical edge and high-motor cuts completely caught the opposing defense sleeping.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Wreaking absolute havoc in the passing lanes generated a positive impact (+3.1) despite a frigid shooting night. His elite screen navigation and rear-view contests completely disrupted the opponent's primary actions. He proved that a player can control the flow of a game entirely through deflections and sheer defensive terror.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.9

Over-dribbling and a failure to initiate sets quickly resulted in stalled possessions, dragging his impact slightly below neutral (-1.2). He struggled to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack, forcing the bigs into foul trouble on late rotations. A few nice connective passes weren't enough to make up for the lack of offensive aggression.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 13.7m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Passing up open looks and lacking assertiveness on the wing created a stagnant offense, sinking his net impact into the red (-2.7). While his weak-side defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed his man to roam freely as a free safety. The team simply couldn't afford playing four-on-five on the offensive end during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.8

A brief garbage-time cameo yielded a negative impact (-1.3) after he blew a defensive assignment immediately upon checking in. There simply wasn't enough time on the clock to establish any sort of rhythm or positive contribution.

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
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Barely saw the floor in the final minute, resulting in a negligible -0.5 impact score. The fleeting appearance offered no real opportunity to influence the game's outcome or establish defensive positioning.

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 +0.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -1.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 36.4m
19
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

A stark negative overall impact (-10.3) was driven by heavily congested interior spacing and forced attempts at the rim. His refusal to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, stalling out offensive sets during key stretches. Despite solid individual defensive metrics, the team bled points in transition off his empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Isaiah Collier 29.8m
17
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.9

Playmaking volume couldn't offset the damage done by erratic decision-making in traffic, dragging his net impact into the red (-3.5). Opponents sagged off him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and effectively neutralizing his driving angles in the half-court. His inability to convert efficiently at the rim allowed the defense to leak out for easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
31
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+21.4

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive positive impact (+13.4) as he consistently punished drop coverage. The spacing he provided opened up driving lanes for teammates, completely altering the geometry of the half-court offense. He capitalized on a blistering hot streak from deep to break the game open in the second half.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.7%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +26.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +8.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 24.9m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.3

Defensive mobility anchored his positive overall score (+5.9), as he consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions on the perimeter. While his offensive volume dipped significantly from his recent stretch, his timely floor-spacing from the top of the arc kept the offense humming. He played a perfect complementary role by taking only high-value shots within the flow of the system.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 7.3m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A brief but explosive stint completely flipped the momentum, generating a massive +8.9 impact in under eight minutes. Perfect shot selection and decisive attacks against closeouts punished the secondary unit. He maximized every second on the floor by refusing to let the ball stick.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +88.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Bez Mbeng 33.8m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.3

Smothering on-ball defense was entirely negated by his inability to punish defensive rotations on the other end. He routinely passed up open looks or bricked late-clock bailouts, cratering the team's offensive rating while he was on the floor. The glaring lack of scoring gravity allowed opponents to play a virtual five-on-four in the half-court, resulting in a -9.1 total impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Settling for contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged his overall impact (-11.9) and bailed out the opposing defense. A heavy reliance on low-percentage perimeter attempts short-circuited several promising offensive runs. Even with solid point-of-attack defensive effort, the empty offensive trips proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Relentless energy and loose-ball recoveries were completely overshadowed by his severe limitations as an offensive threat. Defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, which allowed them to double the primary ball-handlers and blow up offensive sets. His negative overall impact (-9.4) stems directly from being a non-factor in the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Immovable positioning in the paint secured a mildly positive impact (+1.4), though his lack of perimeter mobility limited his ceiling. He consistently walled off the restricted area, forcing opponents into tough mid-range floaters. However, a lack of secondary hustle plays prevented him from dominating the margins of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -33.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0