Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 167 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Jenkins 6/16 -4.7
Huerter 5/11 -1.5
Harris 7/10 +4.8
Holland II 4/7 +1.9
LeVert Hard 4/7 +1.7
Reed Open 4/7 -0.7
Duren Open 4/7 -1.6
Robinson Hard 3/6 +1.5
Thompson Open 3/6 -1.3
Green Hard 2/4 +1.6

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

DiVincenzo Hard 7/18 -0.1
Reid 3/15 -11.9
Randle 2/13 -9.8
Hyland Hard 2/10 -4.3
Gobert Open 6/9 +0.2
Clark 2/6 -3.3
Shannon Jr. Open 2/5 -1.5
Conley Hard 1/5 -2.5
Anderson Hard 1/2 +0.3
Beringer Open 1/1 +0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
MIN
43/82 Field Goals 27/85
52.4% Field Goal % 31.8%
10/26 3-Pointers 9/43
38.5% 3-Point % 20.9%
13/17 Free Throws 24/33
76.5% Free Throw % 72.7%
60.9% True Shooting % 43.7%
59 Total Rebounds 51
10 Offensive 13
42 Defensive 25
28 Assists 18
1.40 Assist/TO Ratio 1.20
19 Turnovers 14
11 Steals 8
9 Blocks 4
24 Fouls 13
60 Points in Paint 32
21 Fast Break Pts 12
11 Points off TOs 7
13 Second Chance Pts 12
52 Bench Points 29
24 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tobias Harris
18 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 28.0 MIN
+18.02
2
Paul Reed
12 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 16.9 MIN
+16.43
3
Ausar Thompson
6 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 24.0 MIN
+13.34
4
Donte DiVincenzo
22 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 33.1 MIN
+13.32
5
Rudy Gobert
14 PTS · 12 REB · 0 AST · 32.0 MIN
+12.82
6
Ronald Holland II
13 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 20.0 MIN
+7.88
7
Javonte Green
6 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 13.6 MIN
+7.8
8
Jalen Duren
10 PTS · 13 REB · 5 AST · 29.1 MIN
+7.28
9
Duncan Robinson
10 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 24.2 MIN
+6.57
10
Jaylen Clark
9 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 17.7 MIN
+6.08
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 DET shot clock Team TURNOVER 109–87
Q4 0:40 J. Green REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 109–87
Q4 0:41 MISS J. Beringer Free Throw 2 of 2 109–87
Q4 0:41 TEAM offensive REBOUND 109–87
Q4 0:41 MISS J. Beringer Free Throw 1 of 2 109–87
Q4 0:41 T. Smith shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Beringer 2 FT) 109–87
Q4 0:50 C. Lanier 11' pullup Jump Shot (2 PTS) (M. Sasser 4 AST) 109–87
Q4 1:12 J. Beringer Free Throw 2 of 2 (4 PTS) 107–87
Q4 1:12 J. Beringer Free Throw 1 of 2 (3 PTS) 107–86
Q4 1:12 T. Smith shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Beringer 2 FT) 107–85
Q4 1:14 J. Beringer STEAL (1 STL) 107–85
Q4 1:14 R. Holland II bad pass TURNOVER (4 TO) 107–85
Q4 1:29 J. Clark Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 107–85
Q4 1:29 J. Clark Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS) 107–84
Q4 1:29 M. Sasser shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Clark 2 FT) 107–83

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

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Relentless perimeter volume stretched the defense to its breaking point, even if the efficiency was slightly uneven. He weaponized his off-ball movement to create constant anxiety for the opponent's scheme, while active hands on defense helped offset his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 32.0m
14
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.2

Anchored the interior with elite rim deterrence and highly efficient finishing as a roll man. He consistently punished switches by sealing smaller defenders deep in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +14.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Julius Randle 30.8m
11
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

A disastrous volume of missed shots completely derailed the offense and tanked his overall value. He repeatedly forced contested looks into heavy traffic rather than moving the ball against double teams.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +8.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite an uptick in scoring aggression, defensive lapses in transition kept his overall impact slightly negative. He struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, frequently losing his assignment on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Mike Conley 21.8m
3
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.7

An inability to create separation against younger, quicker guards severely limited his offensive threat level. Opponents confidently went under his pick-and-rolls, daring him to shoot a jumper that simply wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 26.0m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Errant shot selection from deep completely sabotaged his offensive rating, as he continuously settled for early-clock bombs. The defensive metrics look surprisingly robust due to active hands in the passing lanes, but it wasn't enough to excuse the offensive erraticism.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 24.4m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

An absolutely brutal perimeter shooting slump crippled the second unit's spacing and cratered his net impact. He stubbornly tried to shoot his way out of the funk instead of attacking closeouts or hunting mismatches inside.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 24.5%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaylen Clark 17.7m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Found success cutting to the basket for easy finishes, but defensive struggles at the point of attack washed out his offensive gains. He was frequently caught ball-watching, allowing his man to relocate for open perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Operated as a stabilizing connective piece, using his high basketball IQ to blow up opponent sets on the defensive end. He rarely looked for his own shot, instead focusing entirely on facilitating ball reversals and setting sturdy screens.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Failed to make a meaningful imprint during a brief rotational cameo, largely floating on the perimeter without engaging in the offense. A lack of physicality on the boards allowed opponents to generate second-chance opportunities while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Injected immediate energy into a late-game situation, securing a quick bucket and playing surprisingly stout defense. His active hands and readiness to compete maximized his tiny window of playing time.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 3.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Logged empty cardio during a very short stint, failing to record a single meaningful statistic. His lack of foot speed was immediately targeted by the opposing offense, leading to a quick negative swing in the plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 29.1m
10
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

A sharp drop in offensive volume limited his overall influence, as he struggled to establish deep post position against physical coverage. While his rim protection and rebounding maintained a positive baseline, the inability to finish through contact capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +14.6
Defense -6.0
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 28.0m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.1

Capitalized on favorable matchups in the half-court to generate high-quality looks, significantly boosting his overall impact. His defensive engagement was notably sharper than usual, closing out under control and preventing easy penetration.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Daniss Jenkins 27.6m
13
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Grossly inefficient shot selection tanked his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock. The high volume of empty possessions allowed the defense to leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 24.2m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Defensive liabilities and a lack of secondary hustle plays dragged his net rating into the red. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, negating the value of his perimeter spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 24.0m
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.9

Elite defensive metrics (+10.8) and relentless hustle plays drove a massive positive impact despite a low-usage offensive role. He completely disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm, turning deflections into transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +7.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Cold perimeter shooting suppressed his value, as he failed to punish defenders for going under screens. While he stayed disciplined on the defensive end, the lack of gravity from his usually lethal outside stroke clogged the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 20.2m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Stagnant ball movement and an inability to break down his primary defender resulted in a slightly negative overall showing. He settled for heavily contested perimeter looks instead of attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

A surge of aggressive downhill drives and high-level defensive activity fueled a breakout performance. He consistently beat his man off the dribble, creating chaos in the paint and generating secondary scoring chances.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
Paul Reed 16.9m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.3

Absolute dominance in his bench minutes stemmed from chaotic energy and elite defensive disruption (+7.3). He thrived as a rim-runner and offensive glass crasher, punishing second-unit bigs with sheer physicality.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +38.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to provide a highly efficient spark off the bench. He maintained excellent spacing in the corners and stayed locked in defensively against larger wings.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.0

Complete offensive passivity and zero hustle plays rendered him a massive liability during his brief rotation. He operated purely as a ball-mover without ever threatening the defense, allowing opponents to aggressively help off him.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +52.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Made the most of a brief garbage-time appearance by immediately attacking the basket for a quick conversion. His perfect execution in a tiny sample size kept his metrics in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 2.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Blew defensive coverages during a very short stint at the end of the bench, dragging his rating down. A lack of awareness on weak-side rotations led to easy opponent scores in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0