⏱️How it unfolded
The score against the pace we expected, quarter by quarter.
The score, against the pace we expected
The Grizzlies stayed within a few baskets of the pace we expected all game. A much tighter, lower scoring game than we expected.
Where it moved
▲ MEM better than we expected
▼ SAC better than we expected
The second quarter was where it moved most, 4 points better than our numbers for the Grizzlies.
⚖️What decided it
Why the Grizzlies won, and why the Kings did not.
From the game
Nothing out of the ordinary in the numbers.
Key battles
🏀Good plays, bad plays
The plays that went each side's way, and the ones each side did to itself.
Grizzlies
Good plays
- 8-0 run
A 8-0 run took them from 2 down to 6 up
Q1 9:53 · MEM 10-4 SAC
- 9-0 run
A 9-0 run stretched a 5-point lead to 14
Q2 10:48 · MEM 28-14 SAC
Bad plays
Nothing costly of their own making.
Kings
Good plays
- 9-0 run
A 9-0 run cut a 17-point deficit to 8
Q4 10:38 · MEM 64-56 SAC
Bad plays
Nothing costly of their own making.
📊The numbers
| MEM | SAC | |
|---|---|---|
| 44% | Shooting from the field | 34% |
| 3 | Threes made | 2 |
| 43% | Three-point accuracy | 20% |
| 14 | Free throws made | 9 |
| 57 | Rebounds | 55 |
| 15 | Offensive rebounds | 14 |
| 21 | Assists | 9 |
| 42 | Points in the paint | 40 |
| 16 | Fast break points | 7 |
| 15 | Points off turnovers | 9 |
| 16 | Turnovers | 17 |
| 8 | Steals | 8 |
| 10 | Blocks | 7 |
