Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NOP lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
NOP 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 210 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Mbeng Open 12/18 +3.2
Chandler Open 11/18 +3.0
Williams 8/17 -1.8
Sensabaugh 6/17 -5.0
Tshiebwe Open 6/10 -0.1
Filipowski 3/9 -3.7
Konchar Open 4/8 -0.2
Hinson 3/7 -0.1

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Fears Open 17/29 -1.2
Poole Hard 12/23 +7.2
Hawkins 11/16 +6.3
Peavy Open 9/13 +3.8
Queen Open 6/9 +0.2
Oduro Open 4/7 -1.0
Looney 2/4 +0.2
Alexander 0/3 -2.9
Dickinson Hard 0/2 -1.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
NOP
53/104 Field Goals 61/106
51.0% Field Goal % 57.5%
10/32 3-Pointers 14/34
31.2% 3-Point % 41.2%
21/24 Free Throws 20/23
87.5% Free Throw % 87.0%
59.8% True Shooting % 67.2%
51 Total Rebounds 52
10 Offensive 10
31 Defensive 38
38 Assists 32
2.38 Assist/TO Ratio 1.88
16 Turnovers 16
12 Steals 15
1 Blocks 5
18 Fouls 18
78 Points in Paint 90
22 Fast Break Pts 44
23 Points off TOs 28
12 Second Chance Pts 10
53 Bench Points 38
11 Largest Lead 29
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jeremiah Fears
40 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 37.8 MIN
+37.98
2
Jordan Hawkins
25 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 23.2 MIN
+32.48
3
Kennedy Chandler
31 PTS · 7 REB · 8 AST · 43.2 MIN
+31.2
4
Bez Mbeng
26 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 48.0 MIN
+29.49
5
John Konchar
12 PTS · 10 REB · 10 AST · 37.8 MIN
+23.64
6
Jordan Poole
34 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 31.9 MIN
+23.22
7
Kevon Looney
7 PTS · 12 REB · 6 AST · 28.5 MIN
+17.87
8
Micah Peavy
20 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 36.0 MIN
+16.44
9
Derik Queen
17 PTS · 12 REB · 7 AST · 37.2 MIN
+15.26
10
Oscar Tshiebwe
12 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 21.0 MIN
+10.59
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:05 NOP shot clock Team TURNOVER 137–156
Q4 0:27 K. Chandler Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 137–156
Q4 0:27 K. Chandler Free Throw 1 of 2 (30 PTS) 136–156
Q4 0:27 T. Alexander shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Chandler 2 FT) 135–156
Q4 0:31 T. Alexander Free Throw 2 of 2 (2 PTS) 135–156
Q4 0:31 T. Alexander Free Throw 1 of 2 (1 PTS) 135–155
Q4 0:31 B. Mbeng personal FOUL (2 PF) (Alexander 2 FT) 135–154
Q4 0:35 B. Hinson 3PT pullup (10 PTS) 135–154
Q4 0:37 B. Hinson STEAL (1 STL) 132–154
Q4 0:37 M. Peavy bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 132–154
Q4 0:40 B. Hinson driving Layup (7 PTS) (J. Konchar 10 AST) 132–154
Q4 0:51 J. Hawkins driving finger roll Layup (25 PTS) 130–154
Q4 1:01 O. Tshiebwe personal FOUL (4 PF) 130–152
Q4 1:06 B. Mbeng running finger roll Layup (26 PTS) 130–152
Q4 1:09 B. Mbeng STEAL (5 STL) 128–152

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

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Jeremiah Fears 37.8m
40
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+27.7

Absolute dominance in isolation situations allowed him to systematically dismantle the opposing defense from the midrange. He paired his elite scoring gravity with suffocating on-ball pressure, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation. A relentless downhill attacking mentality defined a performance where he controlled every facet of the game.

Shooting
FG 17/29 (58.6%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.1%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +30.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +6.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Derik Queen 37.2m
17
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.9

Despite dominating the glass and flashing excellent high-post vision, a rash of illegal screens and offensive fouls cratered his overall effectiveness. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage against quick guards, frequently surrendering wide-open floaters. His physical tools were evident, but poor discipline wiped out his positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +12.3
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 55.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 7
S Micah Peavy 36.0m
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

A massive scoring surge was entirely undone by catastrophic decision-making with the ball in his hands. He repeatedly forced passes into tight windows, generating live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's fast break. The impressive finishing at the rim simply couldn't offset the defensive breakdowns he caused in transition.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jordan Poole 31.9m
34
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.9

An explosive perimeter shooting display broke him out of a severe slump, but his erratic shot selection kept his overall impact surprisingly modest. He bled value on the other end of the floor by consistently dying on screens and losing his man off the ball. The sheer volume of his scoring barely outpaced the defensive concessions he made.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 7/16 (43.8%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +25.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +9.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kevon Looney 28.5m
7
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.7

Masterful screen-setting and elite offensive rebounding generated countless second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back. He anchored the defense with flawless positioning, consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions without committing fouls. This was a quintessential glue-guy performance where his physical presence dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +14.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Oduro 26.5m
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

Constant struggles defending in space turned him into a primary target for opposing ball-handlers, bleeding points in isolation matchups. He failed to establish deep post position on offense, resulting in stagnant possessions and forced late-clock passes. His inability to protect the rim or stretch the floor made him a severe liability during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+23.4

Lethal off-ball movement and lightning-quick releases completely warped the opponent's defensive shell, creating massive driving lanes for his teammates. He compounded his offensive brilliance with highly disruptive perimeter defense, jumping passing lanes to ignite instant offense. This was a masterclass in maximizing efficiency, bending the game entirely to his will in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +21.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.7

Failed to find any offensive rhythm, forcing contested jumpers that led to empty trips down the floor. While he provided a few energetic closeouts on defense, his inability to threaten the rim allowed defenders to aggressively help off him. He essentially played as an offensive non-factor during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.2

A brief and ineffective stint was marred by slow defensive rotations that immediately compromised the paint. He looked completely out of sync with the offensive pacing, rushing his few touches and failing to secure contested rebounds. The coaching staff had to pull him quickly as opponents relentlessly attacked his lack of foot speed.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Bez Mbeng 48.0m
26
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.6

Relentless point-of-attack defense and high-motor hustle plays drove a massive breakout performance. However, his overall impact was muted by a string of careless live-ball turnovers late in the shot clock. He thrived in transition but struggled to manage the game tempo during crucial half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.0m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +10.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 34.1m
19
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.0

Poor perimeter shot selection completely tanked his overall value, as he repeatedly forced looks from deep without success. The scoring bump was a mirage masking defensive breakdowns and costly empty possessions that fueled opponent runs. A severe disconnect between his counting stats and actual floor impact defined his night.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.0

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his disastrous impact score, as he settled for heavily contested off-the-dribble jumpers. His defensive effort waned when his shots weren't falling, leading to missed rotations that gifted the opposition open corner threes. This was a classic case of empty volume actively hurting the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg -56.1
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Oscar Tshiebwe 21.0m
12
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite finishing well around the rim to continue his efficient streak, his overall footprint skewed negative due to poor spatial awareness on offense. He clogged the paint, leading to spacing issues that stalled half-court sets. The solid interior defense couldn't outpace the offensive friction he created when he didn't have the ball.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +7.9
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 18.3m
9
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-17.1

A drastic regression from his recent scoring tear was characterized by hesitant decisions and heavily contested midrange attempts. Opponents successfully targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, exploiting his slow lateral rotations to generate easy looks. His inability to find an offensive rhythm ultimately compounded his defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
31
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+21.6

Elite rim pressure and decisive playmaking allowed him to completely dictate the offensive tempo. He consistently blew past primary defenders to collapse the paint, generating high-quality looks for himself and others. Active hands in passing lanes further amplified his value, turning defensive stops into immediate transition threats.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.2m
Scoring +25.3
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
John Konchar 37.8m
12
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+8.5

While he stuffed the stat sheet with connective passing and positional rebounding, a high volume of unforced errors severely capped his actual value. Opponents sagged off him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and effectively bogging down the team's half-court spacing. His defensive positioning remained sound, but the offensive friction he caused resulted in a net-neutral outing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +11.7
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 20
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Blake Hinson 11.4m
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

Provided a stabilizing presence during his brief rotation minutes by making quick, decisive reads on the wing. His willingness to fight through screens and contest perimeter shots added subtle but crucial defensive value. Even with a dip in his recent scoring volume, his disciplined shot profile kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1