Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DEN lead MEM lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MEM 2P — 3P —
DEN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 182 attempts

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Coward 10/17 +5.7
Williamson Hard 6/12 +2.0
Mashack 4/12 -4.3
Okani Hard 5/10 +3.8
Clayton Jr. Hard 5/10 +3.0
Bal Hard 3/10 -2.0
Whitehead Hard 2/10 -4.0
Hendricks 6/8 +4.5
Gibson Hard 1/3 -0.5

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Murray Hard 8/17 +5.9
Johnson 8/12 +4.8
Hardaway Jr. Hard 5/10 +2.3
Braun Open 7/10 +0.9
Jokić Open 5/8 +0.1
Brown Open 5/7 +1.6
Valančiūnas Open 6/6 +5.2
Strawther 4/6 +3.7
Gordon 2/6 -2.9
Pickett Hard 2/3 +2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MEM
DEN
42/92 Field Goals 53/90
45.7% Field Goal % 58.9%
19/50 3-Pointers 14/36
38.0% 3-Point % 38.9%
16/23 Free Throws 16/21
69.6% Free Throw % 76.2%
58.3% True Shooting % 68.5%
41 Total Rebounds 60
10 Offensive 9
28 Defensive 43
24 Assists 31
4.00 Assist/TO Ratio 2.58
6 Turnovers 12
5 Steals 6
1 Blocks 5
20 Fouls 20
44 Points in Paint 66
7 Fast Break Pts 19
15 Points off TOs 11
10 Second Chance Pts 15
37 Bench Points 58
8 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Nikola Jokić
14 PTS · 16 REB · 10 AST · 31.0 MIN
+24.91
2
Cedric Coward
27 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 21.9 MIN
+24.72
3
Taylor Hendricks
16 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 21.9 MIN
+17.57
4
Jamal Murray
26 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 34.8 MIN
+17.24
5
Cameron Johnson
18 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 29.7 MIN
+17.15
6
Adama Bal
12 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 38.8 MIN
+14.28
7
Bruce Brown
13 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 26.1 MIN
+13.96
8
Christian Braun
14 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 26.6 MIN
+11.92
9
Walter Clayton Jr.
15 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 21.9 MIN
+10.96
10
Toby Okani
15 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 32.8 MIN
+10.36
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:18 D. Holmes II 3PT pullup (3 PTS) (J. Pickett 1 AST) 119–136
Q4 0:34 C. Coward running Layup (27 PTS) 119–133
Q4 0:38 C. Coward REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 117–133
Q4 0:41 MISS D. Holmes II 26' 3PT 117–133
Q4 0:54 C. Coward Free Throw 1 of 1 (25 PTS) 117–133
Q4 0:54 J. Pickett shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Coward 1 FT) 116–133
Q4 0:54 C. Coward 12' driving floating Jump Shot (24 PTS) 116–133
Q4 1:07 K. Simpson traveling TURNOVER (1 TO) 114–133
Q4 1:17 D. Holmes II REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 114–133
Q4 1:21 MISS Z. Nnaji 3PT 114–133
Q4 1:29 K. Simpson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 114–133
Q4 1:33 MISS W. Clayton Jr. 26' step back 3PT 114–133
Q4 1:48 L. Williamson REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 114–133
Q4 1:50 MISS C. Jones driving Layup 114–133
Q4 2:05 D. Holmes II REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 114–133

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 34.8m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.1

High-level shot-making from beyond the arc provided crucial offensive gravity. However, his net impact was surprisingly pedestrian, likely due to defensive lapses at the point of attack that allowed opposing guards to penetrate.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +19.3
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 31.0m
14
pts
16
reb
10
ast
Impact
+28.3

Defensive dominance and elite rebounding completely overshadowed a rare low-scoring night. He controlled the game's tempo through brilliant facilitation and positional awareness, proving he doesn't need to score to dictate the outcome.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +18.4
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 29.7m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.2

Surgical shot selection and continued offensive efficiency kept the floor spaced beautifully. However, his overall impact was muted by giving up ground on defensive switches, keeping his net rating modest.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 26.6m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Despite excellent finishing on cuts and transition opportunities, hidden mistakes like defensive miscommunications or turnovers dragged him into the negative. His inability to stretch the floor from deep allowed defenders to pack the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Gordon 22.3m
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.2

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and poor finishing at the rim tanked his overall effectiveness. Without his usual downhill pressure, the offense stagnated during his minutes and allowed the defense to sag into the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bruce Brown 26.1m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Relentless point-of-attack defense and highly efficient slashing defined a superb two-way performance. He thrived in the chaos of broken plays, turning loose balls into immediate transition offense.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Streaky perimeter shooting provided a temporary offensive spark but failed to move the needle overall. A lack of secondary playmaking and minimal defensive resistance kept his impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

A quick trigger and efficient spacing provided a much-needed jolt for the second unit. His value was strictly tied to his shooting, as he offered virtually zero resistance on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Absolute perfection around the basket punished smaller defenders in the post. He maximized a short stint by bullying his way to the rim, though his heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage limited his total minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 95.6%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Zeke Nnaji 6.9m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.2

Empty offensive possessions and a failure to protect the rim resulted in a bleeding net rating during a brief cameo. Opponents aggressively attacked his positioning, forcing quick substitutions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -54.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Capitalized on garbage-time minutes with confident, decisive shot-making. A quick burst of scoring provided a minor positive bump to close out the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 3.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

A completely invisible offensive showing dragged down his metrics in limited action. He was unable to generate any separation, leading to stagnant possessions when he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Failed to make a positive mark during his short stint, missing his only look and struggling to find the flow of the offense. Defensive missteps compounded the negative impact of his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Incredible per-minute production was driven by instant hustle and a willingness to crash the glass. He completely changed the energy of the floor during his extremely limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jahmai Mashack 32.8m
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.6

Poor shooting efficiency and likely turnovers dragged his total impact into the deep negative despite solid hustle metrics. His inability to finish plays offensively negated any physical effort he provided on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -42.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Toby Okani 32.8m
15
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

A massive scoring surge from the perimeter masked underlying flaws that kept his overall impact in the red. While his defensive metrics were strong, hidden costs like defensive breakdowns or live-ball turnovers likely eroded his breakout offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -42.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

Steady offensive execution kept his impact slightly above water during his rotation minutes. He picked his spots well within the flow of the offense, though a lack of overwhelming defensive presence capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.7

Elite shot selection and high-level hustle plays fueled a massive positive swing during his minutes. Capitalizing on defensive rotations, he converted his looks at a highly efficient clip to anchor the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 21.9m
27
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+27.7

Aggressive, high-volume attacking generated a massive box score footprint that translated directly to winning basketball. He consistently punished mismatches to double his usual scoring output, driving a dominant offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 36.5%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +21.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Adama Bal 38.8m
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Excellent defensive metrics and strong hustle were ultimately undone by bricked shots and offensive inefficiency. Forcing looks against set defenses dragged down his net rating despite his heavy workload and off-ball effort.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Scoring volume completely masked a porous defensive performance that bled points on the other end. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, turning his offensive breakout into an empty-calorie showing.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.3

A disastrous perimeter shooting night cratered his value, as he settled exclusively for heavily contested outside looks. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, compounding his negative defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -48.4
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense -6.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Taj Gibson 5.0m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

A brief, ineffective stint saw him struggle to anchor the paint against quicker bigs. Missed interior looks and a lack of defensive deterrence quickly relegated him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0