Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DEN lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
DEN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 190 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Filipowski 11/17 +2.9
Harkless Hard 4/16 -7.0
Bailey Hard 7/14 +0.6
Williams Open 9/14 -0.8
Chandler 7/10 +5.5
Konchar Open 8/10 +3.6
Sensabaugh Hard 4/8 +3.1
Tshiebwe Open 3/4 +0.4
Mbeng Open 0/2 -2.8

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Murray Hard 9/18 +6.9
Jokić 13/16 +10.2
Hardaway Jr. Hard 5/12 +2.5
Gordon 6/12 -2.5
Johnson Hard 4/11 -0.1
Watson 2/10 -5.4
Braun Open 3/8 -3.1
Brown 3/5 +1.1
Strawther 0/2 -2.2
Jones Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
DEN
53/95 Field Goals 45/95
55.8% Field Goal % 47.4%
9/33 3-Pointers 19/48
27.3% 3-Point % 39.6%
14/19 Free Throws 26/32
73.7% Free Throw % 81.2%
62.4% True Shooting % 61.9%
48 Total Rebounds 56
9 Offensive 15
34 Defensive 35
34 Assists 34
3.40 Assist/TO Ratio 2.27
10 Turnovers 14
10 Steals 5
4 Blocks 4
24 Fouls 17
84 Points in Paint 46
24 Fast Break Pts 17
28 Points off TOs 13
15 Second Chance Pts 19
41 Bench Points 35
14 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Nikola Jokić
33 PTS · 15 REB · 12 AST · 38.6 MIN
+30.65
2
Jamal Murray
31 PTS · 6 REB · 14 AST · 39.4 MIN
+29.59
3
John Konchar
16 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 30.2 MIN
+24.73
4
Cody Williams
24 PTS · 0 REB · 7 AST · 30.3 MIN
+22.98
5
Kyle Filipowski
25 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 24.8 MIN
+18.55
6
Aaron Gordon
17 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 30.9 MIN
+15.21
7
Tim Hardaway Jr.
21 PTS · 0 REB · 0 AST · 28.3 MIN
+14.68
8
Kennedy Chandler
16 PTS · 1 REB · 7 AST · 29.4 MIN
+14.12
9
Oscar Tshiebwe
9 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 12.4 MIN
+12.82
10
Brice Sensabaugh
13 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 25.5 MIN
+11.04
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:13 J. Murray REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 129–135
Q4 0:16 MISS A. Bailey 34' 3PT 129–135
Q4 0:18 J. Murray 27' 3PT pullup (31 PTS) 129–135
Q4 0:31 A. Gordon STEAL (1 STL) 129–132
Q4 0:31 E. Harkless lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 129–132
Q4 0:45 C. Johnson 3PT (12 PTS) (N. Jokić 12 AST) 129–132
Q4 0:47 N. Jokić REBOUND (Off:4 Def:11) 129–129
Q4 0:50 MISS T. Hardaway Jr. 3PT 129–129
Q4 1:07 E. Harkless 26' 3PT pullup (11 PTS) 129–129
Q4 1:15 J. Murray 25' 3PT step back (28 PTS) (N. Jokić 11 AST) 126–129
Q4 1:28 A. Bailey bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 126–126
Q4 1:37 E. Harkless REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 126–126
Q4 1:41 MISS N. Jokić Free Throw 2 of 2 126–126
Q4 1:41 TEAM offensive REBOUND 126–126
Q4 1:41 MISS N. Jokić Free Throw 1 of 2 126–126

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

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 39.4m
31
pts
6
reb
14
ast
Impact
+23.1

Broke the opposing defense down with a lethal combination of pull-up shooting and elite pick-and-roll navigation. His aggressive shot-making from beyond the arc stretched the floor, opening up passing lanes that he expertly exploited.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +24.7
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 38.6m
33
pts
15
reb
12
ast
Impact
+34.5

Operated with surgical precision from the high post, dissecting double-teams with elite vision and unmatched touch. His ability to dictate the pace of the game and generate flawless looks for himself and others resulted in a masterclass of offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 13/16 (81.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +29.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +17.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -15.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 76.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Aaron Gordon 30.9m
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Provided a steady dose of physical drives and solid weak-side rim protection, keeping his baseline value afloat. The negative final tally stems directly from empty possessions triggered by missed three-pointers that stalled the half-court momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 26.2m
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Settled exclusively for perimeter jumpers, completely abandoning any threat of dribble penetration. While his defensive rotations were crisp, the one-dimensional shot profile allowed the opposing defense to stay home and limit his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 21.7m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Struggled to leave a footprint on the game, looking hesitant when attacking closeouts. A lack of disruptive plays on the defensive end compounded his offensive passivity, leading to a significant negative swing during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.5

Embraced his role as a pure floor-spacer, taking every single shot from behind the three-point line. The streaky perimeter execution paid off just enough to yield a positive impact, though the lack of secondary playmaking capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-20.2

Offensive rhythm completely evaporated amidst a flurry of forced, heavily contested mid-range jumpers. The resulting empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent severely punished the team during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 30.9%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
Bruce Brown 15.2m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Delivered a quiet, low-usage shift characterized by opportunistic cuts and reliable finishing. However, his inability to generate defensive events or force turnovers left his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Focused entirely on doing the dirty work, crashing the glass and fighting through screens. The complete absence of offensive gravity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint, dragging down the unit's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.1

Failed to find the mark during a brief cameo, rushing his perimeter attempts against tight coverage. Defensive lapses in transition further marginalized his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Elijah Harkless 41.2m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

An absolute menace on the defensive end, generating immense value through deflections and relentless ball pressure. Unfortunately, that elite defensive effort was entirely undone by a disastrous shooting performance characterized by forced, late-clock heaves.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.2m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cody Williams 30.3m
24
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.7

Relentless rim pressure and decisive playmaking defined this highly efficient outing. He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-quality looks for teammates, maximizing his offensive footprint without forcing a single three-point attempt.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +19.2
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 27.5m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Impact cratered due to poor perimeter shot selection, constantly settling for contested looks from deep. Despite decent hustle metrics, his inability to stretch the floor effectively bogged down the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggled to find his usual scoring rhythm, taking a backseat in the offensive hierarchy. However, he managed to salvage his overall rating through engaged point-of-attack defense and timely hustle plays that kept the secondary unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Filipowski 24.8m
25
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.7

Dominated the interior with a soft touch around the basket, continuing a dominant streak of high-percentage finishing. His overall value would have been even higher if not for a string of ill-advised attempts from beyond the arc that bailed out the defense.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 30.2m
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.8

Thrived as an opportunistic cutter and transition finisher, capitalizing on every breakdown in the opponent's rotation. His defensive positioning was equally superb, consistently blowing up actions before they could materialize into scoring threats.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
16
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.8

Despite an efficient scoring night, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive miscommunications and costly turnovers. The raw production masked stretches where he struggled to organize the offense against heavy perimeter pressure.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bez Mbeng 18.6m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.4

A complete non-factor offensively, failing to apply any pressure on the rim or space the floor. He leaned heavily on his defensive motor and hustle to stay on the court, but the lack of scoring gravity ultimately cramped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Made the most of limited minutes by dominating the restricted area and converting second-chance opportunities. His physical screen-setting and reliable finishing provided a massive jolt of energy to the interior offense.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +10.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1