⏱️How it unfolded
The score against the pace we expected, quarter by quarter.
The score, against the pace we expected
The Grizzlies got 11 points ahead of the pace we expected in the second quarter and stayed there. 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, 8 points better than our numbers for the Grizzlies.
⚖️What decided it
Why the Grizzlies won, and why the Kings did not.
From the game
A 12-0 run stretched a 2-point lead to 14 in the second quarter
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 stretched a 3-point lead to 11
Q1 7:37 · MEM 16-5 SAC
- 12-0 run
A 12-0 run stretched a 2-point lead to 14
Q2 11:19 · MEM 36-22 SAC
Bad plays
- Technical
Zach Randolph technical foul(1st technical foul)
Q4 2:47 · MEM 91-78 SAC
Kings
Good plays
No play that swung it their way.
Bad plays
Nothing costly of their own making.
📊The numbers
| MEM | SAC | |
|---|---|---|
| 46% | Shooting from the field | 41% |
| 8 | Threes made | 5 |
| 35% | Three-point accuracy | 31% |
| 13 | Free throws made | 12 |
| 54 | Rebounds | 51 |
| 14 | Offensive rebounds | 12 |
| 23 | Assists | 16 |
| 44 | Points in the paint | 40 |
| 15 | Fast break points | 10 |
| 8 | Points off turnovers | 19 |
| 14 | Turnovers | 15 |
| 7 | Steals | 4 |
| 11 | Blocks | 3 |
