Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
UTA lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
UTA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mobley Open 15/21 +5.0
Mitchell Hard 10/18 +5.4
Merrill Hard 4/14 -6.9
Ellis 6/10 +2.4
Harden Hard 4/9 +0.3
Proctor 3/6 +0.3
Schröder Hard 1/4 -1.7
Tomlin Open 2/3 +0.6
Bryant Hard 1/3 -1.1
Porter Jr. Hard 1/2 0.0

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Williams 11/22 +0.3
Chandler 4/16 -6.3
Bailey Hard 8/15 +4.3
Filipowski Hard 7/12 +5.2
Sensabaugh Hard 6/12 +3.6
Konchar Hard 2/4 +2.4
Tshiebwe 3/4 +2.3
Mbeng Hard 1/3 0.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
UTA
47/90 Field Goals 42/88
52.2% Field Goal % 47.7%
6/32 3-Pointers 15/29
18.8% 3-Point % 51.7%
22/27 Free Throws 14/20
81.5% Free Throw % 70.0%
59.9% True Shooting % 58.4%
54 Total Rebounds 46
11 Offensive 11
38 Defensive 29
33 Assists 32
2.75 Assist/TO Ratio 2.13
11 Turnovers 15
9 Steals 9
7 Blocks 3
17 Fouls 23
82 Points in Paint 40
15 Fast Break Pts 26
20 Points off TOs 18
11 Second Chance Pts 10
19 Bench Points 18
15 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Evan Mobley
34 PTS · 17 REB · 3 AST · 29.6 MIN
+36.1
2
Donovan Mitchell
34 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 35.8 MIN
+27.03
3
Kyle Filipowski
20 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 24.0 MIN
+23.92
4
Cody Williams
26 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 36.6 MIN
+19.37
5
James Harden
13 PTS · 6 REB · 14 AST · 38.6 MIN
+16.02
6
Ace Bailey
19 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 35.0 MIN
+12.14
7
Brice Sensabaugh
18 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 26.1 MIN
+11.12
8
Keon Ellis
13 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 31.9 MIN
+11.1
9
Oscar Tshiebwe
7 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 19.1 MIN
+8.99
10
John Konchar
6 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 30.0 MIN
+8.02
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:19 C. Williams 12' step back Jump Shot (26 PTS) 122–113
Q4 0:36 K. Ellis 3PT (13 PTS) (D. Mitchell 5 AST) 122–111
Q4 0:59 J. Harden REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 119–111
Q4 1:01 MISS O. Tshiebwe Free Throw 2 of 2 119–111
Q4 1:01 O. Tshiebwe Free Throw 1 of 2 (7 PTS) 119–111
Q4 1:01 S. Merrill shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Tshiebwe 2 FT) 119–110
Q4 1:04 K. Chandler REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 119–110
Q4 1:09 MISS S. Merrill 25' 3PT 119–110
Q4 1:30 E. Mobley REBOUND (Off:4 Def:13) 119–110
Q4 1:32 MISS O. Tshiebwe 11' floating Shot 119–110
Q4 1:39 TEAM offensive REBOUND 119–110
Q4 1:39 E. Mobley BLOCK (3 BLK) 119–110
Q4 1:39 MISS C. Williams driving Layup - blocked 119–110
Q4 1:47 D. Mitchell Free Throw 2 of 2 (34 PTS) 119–110
Q4 1:47 D. Mitchell Free Throw 1 of 2 (33 PTS) 118–110

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

UTA Utah Jazz
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.4

A brutal shooting night completely torpedoed his impact, as he repeatedly forced up contested looks in the paint. Despite generating impressive hustle metrics through loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. His inability to finish at the rim stalled out multiple critical runs.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Cody Williams 36.6m
26
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.4

Relentless attacking of the midrange and paint drove a highly productive scoring night, breaking out of a recent efficiency slump. He paired the offensive aggression with active hands on defense, generating deflections that sparked fast breaks. The sheer volume of successful drives outweighed a few forced attempts in traffic.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +17.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 35.0m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.4

Strong scoring efficiency was entirely undone by defensive lapses and likely a high volume of costly turnovers that sparked opponent fast breaks. He bled points on the other end by losing his man off the ball, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making. The raw production looked great, but the hidden mistakes dragged his true impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided vital secondary scoring by capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the perimeter. He held his own defensively against quicker wings, using his frame to cut off driving angles. A balanced, mistake-free performance that kept the offensive machinery humming.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +12.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 24.0m
20
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.8

A lethal combination of floor-spacing and interior rebounding fueled a massive positive swing. He consistently punished drop coverages by stepping out for clean looks, extending a streak of highly efficient performances. His defensive positioning was impeccable, walling off the paint without committing unnecessary fouls.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
John Konchar 30.0m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Flawless execution on spot-up opportunities was negated by defensive struggles and an inability to stay in front of his assignments. He was frequently targeted in isolation, bleeding points that erased his tidy offensive contributions. A lack of overall aggression left him floating on the perimeter for long stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bez Mbeng 28.8m
5
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.5

Offensive invisibility severely hampered his overall rating, as he struggled to initiate sets or create advantages. While he generated some value through active perimeter defense and hustle plays, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to roam freely. The inability to pressure the rim made him a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Dominated the dirty work in limited minutes, securing extra possessions through sheer physical force on the glass. He finished his looks around the rim with authority, continuing a streak of highly efficient interior play. His sturdy post defense prevented opponents from establishing deep position.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +7.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 38.6m
13
pts
6
reb
14
ast
Impact
+7.2

Elite playmaking volume was overshadowed by the negative weight of perimeter misses and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. While he successfully orchestrated the offense in the half-court, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag and clog passing lanes. His defensive metrics were surprisingly robust, but couldn't offset the offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +4.5
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
34
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+23.1

A heavy surge in offensive aggression paid off beautifully, generating high-leverage buckets when the offense stagnated to break a recent efficiency slump. He balanced his scoring bursts with engaged perimeter defense, disrupting passing lanes to fuel transition opportunities. The sheer volume of successful drives outweighed any defensive lapses, stabilizing the primary unit.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +27.8
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keon Ellis 31.9m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Defensive tenacity and efficient shot selection kept him in the positive across most underlying metrics, but hidden costs dragged him slightly into the red. Poorly timed fouls or defensive breakdowns off the ball likely offset his point-of-attack pressure. His ability to hound opposing guards remains a vital tool despite the marginal negative score.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 29.6m
34
pts
17
reb
3
ast
Impact
+37.2

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive impact score, highlighted by a relentless streak of high-percentage finishes. He anchored the interior on both ends, combining rim protection with elite roll-man execution to completely warp the opponent's defensive scheme. Continuing a trend of hyper-efficient scoring, his sheer physical presence dictated the terms of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 15/21 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +29.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +20.6
Defense -2.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 28.1m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.9

Severe perimeter shooting struggles tanked his overall value, as a barrage of missed looks from deep destroyed the team's half-court spacing. Despite the offensive zeroes, he managed to salvage some utility through active rotations and solid hustle metrics. The inability to stretch the floor ultimately allowed defenders to pack the paint and stifle drives.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

A passive offensive outing severely limited his influence, as he struggled to find gaps in the defense or create separation off the bounce. He stayed engaged on the less glamorous end, applying steady ball pressure to generate a respectable defensive rating. Ultimately, the lack of downhill penetration rendered his minutes largely neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.8

Poor spacing and an inability to convert around the basket cratered his overall effectiveness, snapping a streak of reliable interior finishing. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding value despite showing some resistance at the rim. The lack of offensive punch made it impossible to justify his defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.0

Minimal offensive involvement and a lack of defensive playmaking resulted in a quiet, negative stint. He failed to leave a footprint on the game's tempo, blending into the background during his rotation minutes. A few missed rotations likely compounded the subtle drag on the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Maintained a steady rhythm with smart shot selection, continuing a recent trend of highly efficient scoring from the perimeter. He navigated screens well on defense, staying attached to his assignments and preventing easy dribble penetration. His controlled pace helped stabilize the second unit during crucial transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Capitalized on a brief window of opportunity by finishing his looks efficiently around the basket. His length disrupted a few key actions on defense, providing a quick spark of energy off the bench. A solid, low-mistake shift that perfectly executed his specialized role as an interior finisher.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0