Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead UTA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
UTA 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 203 attempts

UTA UTA Shot-making Δ

Markkanen 9/22 -3.8
George Hard 12/20 +9.3
Love Hard 8/15 +4.0
Bailey 4/12 -3.7
Nurkić Open 6/9 +1.1
Sensabaugh Hard 4/8 +2.9
Collier 2/6 -2.3
Mykhailiuk Hard 2/5 +0.5
Filipowski 1/5 -3.7
Clayton Jr. 0/2 -2.1

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Morant Open 7/20 -8.0
Aldama Hard 8/15 +5.3
Wells 6/13 +0.2
Jackson Jr. 6/13 -1.6
Coward 7/11 +4.1
Caldwell-Pope 3/10 -4.2
Landale 3/7 +0.4
Spencer Hard 6/6 +11.6
Williams Jr. 0/4 -4.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
UTA
MEM
48/104 Field Goals 46/99
46.2% Field Goal % 46.5%
17/47 3-Pointers 19/41
36.2% 3-Point % 46.3%
17/25 Free Throws 15/21
68.0% Free Throw % 71.4%
56.5% True Shooting % 58.2%
67 Total Rebounds 57
14 Offensive 9
44 Defensive 40
33 Assists 32
2.54 Assist/TO Ratio 3.20
13 Turnovers 10
6 Steals 4
4 Blocks 5
23 Fouls 21
48 Points in Paint 44
7 Fast Break Pts 17
13 Points off TOs 12
24 Second Chance Pts 14
38 Bench Points 35
10 Largest Lead 12
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Keyonte George
39 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 33.8 MIN
+34.13
2
Jusuf Nurkić
13 PTS · 17 REB · 7 AST · 27.5 MIN
+21.64
3
Kevin Love
20 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 20.4 MIN
+19.81
4
Cam Spencer
20 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 25.3 MIN
+19.6
5
Santi Aldama
22 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 35.8 MIN
+19.17
6
Cedric Coward
17 PTS · 12 REB · 6 AST · 29.4 MIN
+18.23
7
Jaylen Wells
19 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 32.5 MIN
+13.2
8
Brice Sensabaugh
11 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 17.5 MIN
+12.1
9
Jock Landale
8 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 27.3 MIN
+9.21
10
Lauri Markkanen
26 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 35.6 MIN
+9.04
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 S. Aldama REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 130–126
Q4 0:01 MISS C. Coward 25' 3PT 130–126
Q4 0:06 K. George Free Throw 2 of 2 (39 PTS) 130–126
Q4 0:06 K. George Free Throw 1 of 2 (38 PTS) 129–126
Q4 0:06 S. Aldama take personal FOUL (3 PF) (George 2 FT) 128–126
Q4 0:08 J. Jackson Jr. take personal FOUL (4 PF) 128–126
Q4 0:22 K. Love REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 128–126
Q4 0:26 MISS J. Morant 25' pullup 3PT 128–126
Q4 0:30 TEAM defensive REBOUND 128–126
Q4 0:32 MISS K. George 25' step back 3PT 128–126
Q4 0:47 L. Markkanen REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 128–126
Q4 0:50 MISS J. Morant driving Layup 128–126
Q4 0:58 K. George 22' pullup Jump Shot (37 PTS) 128–126
Q4 1:10 J. Morant lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (4 TO) 126–126
Q4 1:20 C. Coward REBOUND (Off:3 Def:9) 126–126

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

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Santi Aldama 35.8m
22
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.8

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt and active defensive rotations drove a highly positive two-way performance. He consistently made the right reads as a trailer, punishing late closeouts with decisive action.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 32.5m
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

While his offensive aggression surged, defensive bleeding and empty possessions elsewhere dragged his net impact into the red. He struggled to navigate screens on the perimeter, giving back much of the value he created with the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 29.4m
17
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+15.2

Relentless activity around the basket and high-quality shot selection kept the offense humming. He dominated the dirty work in the paint, securing extra possessions and finishing through contact.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +15.2
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Bricked perimeter attempts and a lack of interior dominance limited his effectiveness. Settling for outside looks rather than attacking mismatches inside prevented him from anchoring the offense.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ja Morant 25.2m
21
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.6

Elite hustle metrics and constant rim pressure offset a highly inefficient shooting night. Even when his floater wasn't falling, his ability to collapse the paint created wide-open looks for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
Jock Landale 27.3m
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Serviceable activity on the glass was overshadowed by missed bunnies around the rim that stalled offensive momentum. Failing to convert high-percentage looks inside allowed the opponent to leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +5.6
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Spencer 25.3m
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

Flawless perimeter execution punished defensive lapses and single-handedly swung the momentum. Operating as a lethal release valve, he capitalized on every breakdown with perfect shooting mechanics to break the opposing zone.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 145.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +20.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.7

Clanking open spot-up looks erased the value of his typically solid point-of-attack defense. His inability to punish double-teams on the star players allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.9

An offensive black hole whose inability to convert any looks completely derailed the second unit's flow. His forced attempts early in the shot clock led directly to opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Scoring -3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 35.6m
26
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

A heavy volume of clanked jumpers dragged down his overall rating despite decent defensive metrics. His insistence on forcing contested looks against set defenses proved costly.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +6.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -12.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Keyonte George 33.8m
39
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+28.1

Scorching perimeter execution and elite decision-making in the pick-and-roll fueled a massive offensive surge. He consistently punished drop coverage, dictating the pace of the game from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Scoring +32.8
Creation +3.8
Shot Making +8.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -7.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 31.4m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

Poor shot selection and a string of forced jumpers completely derailed his offensive rhythm. The stark regression from his recent scoring tear left the second unit searching for answers.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jusuf Nurkić 27.5m
13
pts
17
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.0

Elite defensive anchoring and highly efficient finishing in the paint drove a massive positive rating. He dominated his matchup physically, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass to spark transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +14.8
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 23.7m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Impact suffered due to a sharp drop in offensive aggression compared to his recent hot streak. Settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-16.3

A passive approach and inability to generate rim pressure tanked his overall value. Failing to collapse the defense meant the offense stagnated whenever he initiated sets.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevin Love 20.4m
20
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.0

A massive resurgence from the perimeter stretched the defense to its breaking point. His ability to trail the play and drain transition triples completely altered the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.6

Snapped a hyper-efficient hot streak with a tentative showing that offered zero interior gravity. His reluctance to challenge defenders in the paint allowed the opposition to stay glued to shooters.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Timely shot-making from beyond the arc provided a steadying secondary punch despite a drop in overall volume. He capitalized on defensive rotations, knocking down open looks to keep the spacing intact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.9

A brief, empty stint highlighted by defensive lapses rendered him a net negative. He failed to make any tangible impact during his short run, struggling to stay in front of his primary assignment.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0