Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 189 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Buzelis 10/21 -1.5
Jones Open 8/15 -1.6
Sexton 6/14 -0.8
Giddey 6/11 +1.9
Okoro 3/7 -2.5
Dillingham 3/5 +1.8
Williams 2/5 -1.8
Olbrich Open 2/2 +1.2
Miller 1/2 -0.5

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Coward 10/19 +2.0
Burton 7/15 -0.6
Jackson 3/14 -10.5
Mashack Open 8/12 +2.6
Rupert 6/10 +2.5
Clayton Jr. Hard 3/9 -2.2
Prosper Open 5/8 +0.9
Bal 1/8 -6.5
Jarreau Open 5/7 +2.0
Small Hard 2/5 +0.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
MEM
41/82 Field Goals 50/107
50.0% Field Goal % 46.7%
10/33 3-Pointers 12/38
30.3% 3-Point % 31.6%
32/43 Free Throws 13/17
74.4% Free Throw % 76.5%
61.4% True Shooting % 54.6%
66 Total Rebounds 48
10 Offensive 10
43 Defensive 27
26 Assists 31
1.13 Assist/TO Ratio 2.21
23 Turnovers 14
8 Steals 17
11 Blocks 3
20 Fouls 32
60 Points in Paint 70
17 Fast Break Pts 17
13 Points off TOs 27
16 Second Chance Pts 20
46 Bench Points 59
5 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cedric Coward
24 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 24.2 MIN
+25.03
2
Josh Giddey
18 PTS · 13 REB · 10 AST · 34.9 MIN
+19.81
3
Matas Buzelis
29 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 38.5 MIN
+19.16
4
Collin Sexton
26 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 30.4 MIN
+17.96
5
Rayan Rupert
14 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 30.4 MIN
+14.04
6
DeJon Jarreau
14 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 19.3 MIN
+13.65
7
Tyler Burton
18 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 26.6 MIN
+13.32
8
Jahmai Mashack
17 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 29.9 MIN
+13.24
9
Tre Jones
19 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 29.3 MIN
+13.21
10
Javon Small
6 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 15.5 MIN
+11.02
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:02 T. Jones STEAL (2 STL) 124–125
Q4 0:02 C. Coward bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 124–125
Q4 0:04 J. Giddey Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 124–125
Q4 0:04 J. Giddey Free Throw 1 of 2 (17 PTS) 123–125
Q4 0:04 R. Rupert take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Giddey 2 FT) 122–125
Q4 0:06 C. Coward Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 122–125
Q4 0:06 C. Coward Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 122–124
Q4 0:06 C. Sexton personal FOUL (2 PF) (Coward 2 FT) 122–123
Q4 0:07 J. Giddey driving DUNK (16 PTS) (T. Jones 6 AST) 122–123
Q4 0:15 W. Clayton Jr. 25' 3PT (7 PTS) (C. Coward 4 AST) 120–123
Q4 0:32 T. Jones driving finger roll Layup (19 PTS) 120–120
Q4 0:43 C. Coward offensive foul TURNOVER (2 TO) 118–120
Q4 0:43 C. Coward offensive FOUL (2 PF) 118–120
Q4 1:01 T. Jones driving finger roll Layup (17 PTS) (J. Giddey 10 AST) 118–120
Q4 1:04 J. Mashack running Layup (17 PTS) (W. Clayton Jr. 6 AST) 116–120

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

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Rayan Rupert 30.4m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Slashed effectively off the ball to exploit sleeping defenders, breaking out of a recent scoring rut. While his offensive execution was sharp, frequent defensive gambles left the backline vulnerable to easy layups. A crucial second-quarter stretch of backdoor cuts highlighted his offensive awareness.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 24.2m
24
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+24.0

Put on an absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, suffocating opposing wings while scoring at will. His ability to seamlessly switch across four positions completely short-circuited the opponent's offensive sets. A devastating sequence of back-to-back steals leading to transition dunks broke the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +11.4
Defense +7.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S GG Jackson 21.2m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.6

Shot selection was highly questionable, featuring a steady diet of contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock. Even with commendable hustle on the offensive glass, the sheer volume of wasted possessions cratered his net impact. Opposing wings easily funneled him into the teeth of the defense, neutralizing his driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Javon Small 15.5m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

Operated with surgical precision in the half-court, manipulating defenders with his eyes to create wide-open passing lanes. Though his scoring output dipped significantly, his timely perimeter shooting punished defenders who went under screens. Maintained a steadying presence that elevated the efficiency of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided an immediate spark with decisive straight-line drives and excellent vertical spacing. He maintained his recent streak of hyper-efficient finishing by refusing to settle for contested jumpers. Active closeouts on the perimeter helped stabilize the defense during chaotic transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Excellent interior finishing masked a heavily negative overall impact driven by poor floor spacing and defensive lapses. He consistently found soft spots in the zone, yet his inability to stretch the floor clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators. Late rotations on the perimeter allowed opponents to capitalize on uncontested looks.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.1

Cold perimeter shooting severely hampered the offense, allowing defenders to aggressively pack the paint. He compounded his shooting woes by forcing difficult passes into congested areas, killing offensive momentum. Struggled to navigate off-ball screens, routinely trailing his man and conceding open catch-and-shoot looks.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
Adama Bal 27.6m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.2

A disastrous offensive outing was defined by forced isolation attempts and an inability to create separation. His lack of burst allowed defenders to easily stay attached, resulting in smothered attempts at the rim. The offensive futility bled into his transition defense, where he frequently failed to match up in time.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Burton 26.6m
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Punished aggressive closeouts by attacking the rim with purpose, generating high-percentage looks. Despite the strong offensive showing, his impact was nearly neutralized by a tendency to get caught ball-watching on defense. A flurry of timely corner threes kept the offense afloat during a stagnant third quarter.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Constant rim pressure and elite hustle plays completely tilted the momentum of the game. He lived in the paint, collapsing the defense and generating secondary scoring opportunities through sheer effort. His point-of-attack defense was suffocating, repeatedly blowing up pick-and-roll actions before they could develop.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 38.5m
29
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Incredible scoring aggression fueled a massive statistical output, though his net influence was surprisingly muted by poor transition defense. He repeatedly capitalized on mismatches in the mid-post to generate clean looks. However, late defensive rotations and a few costly live-ball turnovers kept his overall impact grounded.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +19.5
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +5.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 48.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Josh Giddey 34.9m
18
pts
13
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.6

Completely controlled the tempo with elite rebounding and pinpoint hit-ahead passes that ignited the fast break. His defensive anticipation was off the charts, routinely blowing up dribble hand-offs before they materialized. Bouncing back from a recent slump, he dictated the geometry of the floor every time he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +9.7
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 5
S Isaac Okoro 29.7m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.0

Relentless point-of-attack pressure yielded excellent hustle metrics, but his offensive limitations dragged down his overall impact. Perimeter hesitation allowed defenders to heavily sag into the paint, stalling half-court sets. A crucial stretch of forced drives into traffic negated his otherwise stellar defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Tre Jones 29.3m
19
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.8

Masterful orchestration in the pick-and-roll was entirely offset by defensive miscommunications that surrendered wide-open corner threes. While he consistently collapsed the defense to create high-quality looks, his inability to fight through screens proved costly. A late-game sequence of forced passes into tight windows ultimately pushed his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Leonard Miller 16.3m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Anchored the second unit with disciplined weak-side rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes. His offensive volume plummeted compared to recent outings, but he remained highly effective by setting crushing screens and rolling hard to the rim. Thrived in a low-maintenance role by simply punishing defensive mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.3

Downhill aggression broke the paint open all night, forcing the defense into constant rotation. He leveraged his explosive first step to generate consistent rim pressure, though occasional tunnel vision on drives capped his ceiling. A dominant third-quarter scoring burst effectively put the game out of reach.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Passive offensive positioning and a complete lack of perimeter gravity crippled the team's spacing. He repeatedly passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing his defender to roam freely as a free safety. Struggled immensely to contain dribble penetration, leading to compromised defensive shell rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Thrived on dump-off passes and offensive glass activity to generate highly efficient interior offense. Despite the flawless finishing, his overall footprint was minimized by sluggish pick-and-roll coverages on the other end. He provided a reliable safety valve against blitzes but gave up too much ground to opposing ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.0

Over-dribbling against set defenses resulted in stagnant possessions and highly contested, low-efficiency looks. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation, exposing his lack of physicality at the point of attack. A string of careless entry passes directly fueled the opposition's transition game.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5