Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 196 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Fears Open 12/28 -10.9
Queen Open 11/28 -13.0
Hawkins 4/18 -9.4
Peavy 6/12 +0.9
Alexander Hard 7/11 +4.2
Dickinson 3/8 -1.7
Oduro Open 2/2 +1.2

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Shannon Jr. 6/18 -9.4
Pullin 8/12 +4.5
Beringer Open 9/12 +2.8
Phillips 6/12 -0.2
Ingles 6/10 +3.8
Clark Hard 3/9 -1.2
Freeman 4/8 +1.3
DiVincenzo Hard 1/5 -2.2
Zikarsky 2/3 +0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
MIN
45/107 Field Goals 45/89
42.1% Field Goal % 50.6%
5/21 3-Pointers 10/37
23.8% 3-Point % 27.0%
31/38 Free Throws 32/43
81.6% Free Throw % 74.4%
50.9% True Shooting % 61.2%
65 Total Rebounds 60
20 Offensive 12
32 Defensive 35
20 Assists 32
2.22 Assist/TO Ratio 2.91
9 Turnovers 11
9 Steals 5
6 Blocks 13
28 Fouls 27
72 Points in Paint 68
18 Fast Break Pts 10
21 Points off TOs 11
31 Second Chance Pts 21
22 Bench Points 56
0 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Joan Beringer
24 PTS · 13 REB · 2 AST · 31.3 MIN
+33.38
2
Jeremiah Fears
36 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 41.4 MIN
+28.75
3
Derik Queen
30 PTS · 22 REB · 4 AST · 41.1 MIN
+22.58
4
Micah Peavy
21 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 40.8 MIN
+18.36
5
Zyon Pullin
19 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 30.9 MIN
+17.05
6
Trey Alexander
16 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 32.1 MIN
+15.96
7
Joe Ingles
15 PTS · 6 REB · 10 AST · 32.4 MIN
+13.49
8
Enrique Freeman
13 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 26.1 MIN
+12.46
9
Terrence Shannon Jr.
26 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 34.7 MIN
+11.58
10
Rocco Zikarsky
8 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 20.2 MIN
+9.27
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:07 J. Fears reverse Layup (36 PTS) 126–132
Q4 0:16 T. Shannon Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 124–132
Q4 0:16 T. Shannon Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 124–131
Q4 0:16 T. Alexander take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Shannon Jr. 2 FT) 124–130
Q4 0:19 D. Queen 26' 3PT pullup bank (30 PTS) (J. Fears 5 AST) 124–130
Q4 0:25 T. Shannon Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 121–130
Q4 0:25 T. Shannon Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (23 PTS) 121–129
Q4 0:25 M. Peavy take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Shannon Jr. 2 FT) 121–128
Q4 0:31 E. Freeman REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 121–128
Q4 0:33 MISS J. Fears driving Layup 121–128
Q4 0:40 T. Shannon Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 121–128
Q4 0:40 T. Shannon Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 121–127
Q4 0:40 M. Peavy take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Shannon Jr. 2 FT) 121–126
Q4 0:41 T. Alexander driving floating Jump Shot (16 PTS) (M. Peavy 3 AST) 121–126
Q4 0:52 M. Peavy REBOUND (Off:3 Def:1) 119–126

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
26
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Catastrophic ball security (-7.1 turnover penalty) nearly erased the value of a high-volume downhill attacking clinic. While his ability to draw fouls and finish tough looks generated a massive scoring boost (+14.8), his perimeter touch completely abandoned him. The constant giveaways prevented this from being a truly dominant offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 14/18 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 50.2%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Joe Ingles 32.4m
15
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.6

Disastrous decision-making (-7.8 turnover cost) completely sabotaged what was otherwise a brilliant offensive resurgence. He knocked down difficult looks with ease (+4.1 shot-making) and orchestrated the offense effectively (+1.9 creation), but the live-ball giveaways constantly fueled opponent transition opportunities. The veteran's sloppy passing ultimately outweighed his highly efficient scoring burst.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Joan Beringer 31.3m
24
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.5

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive two-way impact, highlighted by an elite rebounding performance (+16.5 hustle). He converted high-percentage looks with ruthless efficiency (+20.2 scoring) while playing completely mistake-free basketball (zero turnover penalty). This performance perfectly encapsulated his mid-season evolution into a highly efficient interior wrecking ball.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +20.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +16.5
Defense -1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 39.3%
STL 0
BLK 7
TO 0
S Jaylen Clark 30.4m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.1

Defensive lapses (-2.6) and a lack of offensive volume dragged his overall rating deep into the red. Despite hitting a couple of tough perimeter shots to earn a positive shot-making bonus (+2.5), he failed to generate consistent rim pressure or protect the ball (-2.4 turnover cost). His inability to string together stops completely negated his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.2

A disastrously brief and ineffective shift saw him bleed value primarily through defensive breakdowns (-1.6) and offensive invisibility. He failed to establish any rhythm during his limited run, generating a negative scoring component (-0.1) due to poor shot selection. This performance was a stark continuation of his late-season perimeter shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zyon Pullin 30.9m
19
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.4

A blistering offensive eruption (+15.9 scoring) carried his value, completely masking a highly problematic defensive showing (-3.7). He broke out of a severe slump by knocking down tough looks (+4.0 shot-making) and playing entirely mistake-free basketball. The sheer efficiency of his scoring output was enough to overcome his inability to stay in front of his assignment.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Defensive frailties (-1.6) and sloppy ball-handling (-2.4 turnover cost) undermined a surprisingly potent offensive outburst. He converted difficult looks at a high clip (+2.7 shot-making) to generate a strong scoring component (+10.0), but gave too much back on the other end of the floor. The inability to string together stops kept his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Active work on the glass (+7.0 hustle) and efficient interior finishing kept his head above water despite severe ball security issues. The costly turnovers (-3.5) nearly wiped out his offensive contributions, but his ability to convert above expected marks (+2.6 shot-making) provided just enough value. He salvaged a positive rating purely through grit and offensive rebounding.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Defensive bleeding (-2.1) and costly turnovers (-2.4) dragged down what was otherwise a highly efficient, low-volume offensive shift. While he converted his few opportunities and flashed some secondary playmaking (+2.3 creation), his inability to anchor the paint defensively proved fatal. He simply gave away too many easy looks on the defensive end to justify his limited offensive role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Jeremiah Fears 41.4m
36
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+23.6

Relentless rim pressure and offensive volume fueled a massive scoring component (+22.6), completely overriding a rough night from beyond the arc. He supplemented this aggressive downhill attack with elite rebounding for a guard (+10.8 hustle) and disruptive defensive play (+3.1). Even with some sloppy ball security (-4.7 turnover cost), his sheer force of will dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 12/28 (42.9%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Scoring +22.6
Creation +4.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +10.8
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Derik Queen 41.0m
30
pts
22
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.4

An absolutely monstrous performance on the glass (+27.0 hustle value) anchored this dominant two-way showing. Despite bleeding value through brutal turnover damage (-9.5), his sheer volume of difficult conversions (+5.0 shot-making) and relentless interior presence overwhelmed the opponent. The sheer force of his rebounding output completely masked the sloppiness in his decision-making.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +27.0
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Micah Peavy 40.8m
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

A massive scoring surge (+16.3) drove his highest impact of the season, breaking out of a brutal 15-game slump. His ability to convert above expected marks (ShotMaking: +3.4) and crash the glass effectively (Hustle: +5.1) completely flipped his usual trajectory. This sudden burst of offensive confidence off the bench finally justified his recent uptick in minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Scoring +16.3
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jordan Hawkins 32.9m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

A brutal shooting night capped his overall impact, as the raw scoring totals masked a highly inefficient shot diet. Although he salvaged some value through secondary creation (+1.7) and active rebounding (+4.4), the sheer volume of missed field goals severely limited his scoring component (+3.0). His inability to find the bottom of the net ultimately dragged down an otherwise solid hustle performance.

Shooting
FG 4/18 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Josh Oduro 31.4m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.4

Severe defensive bleeding (-5.3) and careless ball security (-3.1 in turnover penalties) completely torpedoed his overall value. While he converted his few attempts to secure a minor shot-making bonus (+1.0), his inability to protect the rim rendered those positive moments meaningless. He simply gave back far more on the defensive end than he provided offensively.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 3.5%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Highly efficient perimeter execution (+4.2 shot-making) and disruptive defense (+4.2) formed the foundation of a highly effective two-way shift. Breaking out of a recent slump, he punished defensive rotations while simultaneously shutting down his assignments on the other end. The only blemish was a slight dip in ball security (-2.4), but his shot-making completely shifted the momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

A lack of offensive assertiveness and missed opportunities around the basket kept his scoring impact (+2.3) dangerously low. While he chipped in with decent rebounding value (+4.1), he failed to anchor the defense or punish mismatches effectively. The inability to generate high-value looks ultimately resulted in a highly forgettable, negative-impact shift.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0