Utah Jazz vs Brooklyn Nets Match Player Stats
The utah jazz vs brooklyn nets match player stats from January 31, 2026, tell the story of a competitive NBA game that the Brooklyn Nets won 109-99 against the Utah Jazz at Delta Center in Salt Lake City. Brooklyn secured the victory through balanced scoring, strong rebounding, and timely contributions from its bench, while Utah relied on Keyonte George’s efficient shooting and Kyle Filipowski’s work on the boards. Although the Jazz shot a slightly better percentage from the field, the Nets created more second-chance opportunities and maintained their advantage throughout the fourth quarter.
The final score only explains part of the contest. Brooklyn finished with 47 rebounds, 27 assists, and 14 three-pointers, while Utah recorded 33 rebounds and 26 assists. The most notable individual performance came from Egor Demin, who scored 25 points and collected 10 rebounds for Brooklyn. George led Utah with 26 points and seven assists, making him the game’s leading scorer. Day’Ron Sharpe also played an important role for the Nets, contributing 16 points and nine rebounds.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, shooting efficiency, team statistics, and the factors that decided the game. It also explains what the numbers reveal about each team’s offensive approach and the contributions that might be overlooked when reviewing the box score.
Game Overview: Brooklyn Nets vs Utah Jazz
The matchup took place on January 31, 2026, at Delta Center, the home arena of the Utah Jazz. Brooklyn entered the game with a 13-34 overall record, while Utah stood at 15-34. Despite both teams having losing records, the game featured several productive individual performances and remained competitive through the first three quarters.
Brooklyn Nets
13-34 before game
FINAL
109-99
Brooklyn won
Utah Jazz
15-34 before game
Date
January 31, 2026
Venue
Delta Center
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Attendance
18,186
Final Score by Quarter
The quarter-by-quarter results show how Brooklyn built its winning margin.
| Quarter | Brooklyn Nets | Utah Jazz |
| First quarter | 27 | 26 |
| Second quarter | 27 | 26 |
| Third quarter | 29 | 29 |
| Fourth quarter | 26 | 18 |
| Final score | 109 | 99 |
Brooklyn held a two-point lead after the first quarter and maintained that same advantage at halftime. Both teams scored 29 points in the third quarter, meaning Utah had not yet lost additional ground entering the final period.
The decisive difference came in the fourth quarter. Brooklyn scored 26 points while limiting Utah to 18, turning a close contest into a 10-point victory. This late separation is central to understanding the result because neither team had established overwhelming control during the first 36 minutes.
Utah Jazz vs Brooklyn Nets Match Player Stats: Complete Box Score Analysis
The utah jazz vs brooklyn nets match player stats highlight the contrast between Utah’s efficient shooting and Brooklyn’s superior rebounding. Both teams made 39 field goals, but they reached that total through different shooting volumes and shot distributions.
Brooklyn attempted 82 field goals and made 39, while Utah attempted 78 and also made 39. Utah therefore posted the better field-goal percentage. However, Brooklyn made four more three-pointers and collected 14 more rebounds, giving the visitors important advantages in scoring value and possession opportunities.
Team Statistics Comparison
| Statistical category | Brooklyn Nets | Utah Jazz |
| Points | 109 | 99 |
| Field goals made | 39 | 39 |
| Field goals attempted | 82 | 78 |
| Field-goal percentage | 48% | 50% |
| Three-pointers made | 14 | 10 |
| Three-pointers attempted | 40 | 29 |
| Three-point percentage | 35% | 34% |
| Free throws made | 17 | 11 |
| Free throws attempted | 28 | 19 |
| Free-throw percentage | 61% | 58% |
| Total rebounds | 47 | 33 |
| Offensive rebounds | 11 | 6 |
| Defensive rebounds | 36 | 27 |
| Assists | 27 | 26 |
| Turnovers | 12 | 11 |
| Steals | 6 | 6 |
| Blocks | 5 | 4 |
| Team fouls | 20 | 23 |
Percentages are presented as supplied in the game data and rounded to whole numbers.
Several important observations emerge from this comparison.
First, Utah’s 50% field-goal percentage was better than Brooklyn’s 48%. That suggests the Jazz converted their overall field-goal attempts more efficiently. However, shooting percentage alone does not measure the full value of a possession. Three-pointers are worth more than two-point field goals, and Brooklyn made four additional shots from beyond the arc.
Second, Brooklyn dominated the glass. Its 47 rebounds compared with Utah’s 33 produced a 14-rebound advantage. This was one of the clearest statistical differences in the game.
Third, the teams were close in ball movement and ball security. Brooklyn recorded 27 assists against Utah’s 26, while the Nets committed 12 turnovers compared with 11 for the Jazz. The difference was not a major turnover advantage for either side.
Finally, Brooklyn made six more free throws. Although its free-throw percentage was only 61%, compared with Utah’s 58%, the Nets attempted nine more free throws. Their greater number of attempts helped create additional scoring opportunities.
Brooklyn Nets Player Stats and Individual Performances
Brooklyn’s victory was a team effort, but three players stood out for different reasons. Demin delivered the strongest all-around performance, Cam Thomas supplied additional scoring, and Sharpe provided an efficient inside presence.
Brooklyn Nets Complete Player Statistics
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | FT |
| Egor Demin | 25 | 10 | 4 | 8-16 | 6-12 | 3-4 |
| Cam Thomas | 21 | 2 | 4 | 7-15 | 1-6 | 6-6 |
| Day’Ron Sharpe | 16 | 9 | 1 | 4-5 | 1-1 | 7-9 |
| Danny Wolf | 14 | 5 | 2 | 6-11 | 2-7 | 0-2 |
| Jalen Wilson | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3-7 | 3-6 | 0-0 |
| Terance Mann | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 0-0 |
| Nolan Traore | 7 | 2 | 6 | 3-8 | 0-2 | 1-1 |
| Nic Claxton | 6 | 9 | 3 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 0-6 |
| Drake Powell | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| Ben Saraf | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1-6 | 0-3 | 0-0 |
PTS = points, REB = rebounds, AST = assists, FG = field goals made-attempted, 3PT = three-pointers made-attempted, and FT = free throws made-attempted.
E.J. Liddell and Tyrese Martin did not play because of the coach’s decision.
Egor Demin: 25 Points and 10 Rebounds
Egor Demin
Brooklyn Nets
25
Points
10
Rebounds
4
Assists
Demin was Brooklyn’s leading scorer and its most productive player on the boards. He finished with 25 points, 10 rebounds, and four assists, recording a double-double while contributing across multiple areas of the game.
His shooting numbers were particularly notable. Demin made eight of 16 field-goal attempts and six of 12 three-point attempts. He converted half of his attempts from both the field overall and beyond the arc, giving Brooklyn a dependable source of perimeter offense.
His six three-pointers accounted for 18 of his 25 points. This shows how his long-range shooting helped Brooklyn build its scoring total without needing to make substantially more field goals than Utah.
Demin also collected 10 rebounds, matching the double-digit threshold that defines a double-double when combined with his points. Those rebounds added value beyond his scoring, helping Brooklyn compete for possessions at both ends.
The key takeaway from his performance is the combination of volume and versatility. He was not simply a perimeter shooter. His rebounding and passing also contributed to Brooklyn’s overall balance.
Cam Thomas: 21 Points and Reliable Free-Throw Shooting
Cam Thomas finished with 21 points, two rebounds, and four assists. He made seven of 15 field-goal attempts and converted all six of his free throws.
Thomas was Brooklyn’s second-leading scorer, giving the team another player capable of producing points when the defense focused on Demin. His 21 points were important because Brooklyn did not depend on a single player to carry the entire offense.
His three-point shooting was less effective. Thomas made one of six attempts from long range, so much of his scoring came from other areas. His perfect six-for-six free-throw performance helped compensate for that limitation.
This distinction matters when evaluating an individual box score. A player’s total points show how much he scored, but shooting splits explain how those points were produced. Thomas contributed efficiently at the free-throw line despite an unsuccessful night from beyond the arc.
His four assists also indicate that his contribution was not limited to scoring. He helped create opportunities for teammates while remaining one of Brooklyn’s principal offensive options.
Day’Ron Sharpe: Efficient Interior Scoring
Sharpe recorded 16 points, nine rebounds, and one assist. He made four of five field-goal attempts, one of one three-point attempts, and seven of nine free throws.
His field-goal conversion rate was 80%, the highest among Brooklyn players who attempted at least five field goals. Although five attempts represent a relatively small sample, the result demonstrates how effectively he converted his opportunities.
Sharpe’s nine rebounds were nearly enough for a double-double. Alongside Nic Claxton’s nine rebounds, his work inside contributed to Brooklyn’s advantage on the glass.
Sharpe also made seven free throws, which helped him turn limited field-goal attempts into a substantial scoring total. This is an important detail because interior players often depend on a combination of finishes near the basket and free throws to maximize their offensive production.
His performance provided a useful contrast to Demin’s perimeter-based scoring. Brooklyn received points from outside shooting as well as from inside opportunities, making its offense harder to contain through one defensive approach.
Danny Wolf: A Valuable Supporting Scorer
Danny Wolf finished with 14 points, five rebounds, and two assists. He made six of 11 field-goal attempts, including two of seven from three-point range.
Wolf was Brooklyn’s fourth player to reach double figures in scoring. Having four players score at least 14 points gave the Nets several avenues to generate offense.
His overall field-goal conversion was stronger than his three-point percentage. That difference suggests his scoring effectiveness came from more than perimeter shooting alone. However, his seven three-point attempts show that long-range shots remained a meaningful part of his offensive role.
Wolf also contributed five rebounds, adding to the team’s collective work on the boards. While Demin and Sharpe led the individual rebounding effort, contributions from players across the rotation helped Brooklyn reach 47 total rebounds.
Nolan Traore: Team-High Six Assists
Traore recorded seven points, two rebounds, and six assists. He led Brooklyn in assists despite scoring fewer points than several of his teammates.
His six assists were important to an offense that finished with 27 assists overall. They show how playmaking can influence a game without necessarily appearing prominently in the scoring column.
Traore made three of eight field-goal attempts and one free throw. He did not make a three-pointer in two attempts, so his principal statistical contribution came through facilitating opportunities for others.
For readers studying individual performances, his line is a useful reminder that points alone cannot capture a guard’s entire impact. Assists help measure direct involvement in made baskets by teammates, although they do not account for every useful pass or off-ball action.
Jalen Wilson, Terance Mann, and Nic Claxton
Jalen Wilson scored nine points, grabbed three rebounds, and distributed three assists. He made three of seven field goals, including three of six three-pointers. All nine of his points came from beyond the arc.
Wilson’s perimeter production gave Brooklyn another source of spacing. His three made three-pointers were valuable in a game where the Nets finished with four more successful long-range shots than Utah.
Terance Mann added seven points, two rebounds, and one assist. He made three of six field goals and one of three three-pointers. His contribution was modest in volume but helped support the broader rotation.
Nic Claxton finished with six points, nine rebounds, and three assists. He made three of seven field goals but missed all six free throws he attempted. Those missed free throws represent a clear area of inefficiency in his individual line.
Despite that limitation, Claxton’s nine rebounds and three assists contributed to Brooklyn’s work inside and its ball movement. His performance illustrates why a player should be evaluated through several statistical categories rather than one weakness in isolation.
Brooklyn’s Bench Contribution
The Nets received meaningful production from several players beyond their top scorers. Sharpe scored 16 points, Wolf added 14, and Wilson contributed nine.
These performances helped Brooklyn avoid relying entirely on Demin and Thomas. Together, the four players who scored at least 14 points accounted for 76 of Brooklyn’s 109 points.
The distribution of scoring was one of the team’s strengths. Utah also had several contributors, but Brooklyn’s combination of perimeter scoring, interior finishing, and bench production supported its late-game advantage.
Utah Jazz Player Stats and Individual Performances
Utah had an efficient shooting night by percentage, led by Keyonte George’s 26 points. Kyle Filipowski supplied a double-double, while Brice Sensabaugh and Isaiah Collier provided additional scoring and playmaking.
The Jazz made 39 field goals on 78 attempts, producing a 50% field-goal percentage. However, they finished with 10 three-pointers, six fewer than Brooklyn, and 14 fewer total rebounds.
Utah Jazz Complete Player Statistics
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | FT |
| Keyonte George | 26 | 3 | 7 | 9-11 | 1-3 | 7-10 |
| Brice Sensabaugh | 18 | 5 | 0 | 6-14 | 3-8 | 3-3 |
| Kyle Filipowski | 14 | 12 | 2 | 6-9 | 2-3 | 0-2 |
| Ace Bailey | 12 | 2 | 0 | 5-10 | 2-5 | 0-0 |
| Isaiah Collier | 10 | 2 | 7 | 5-10 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| Taylor Hendricks | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3-7 | 1-4 | 0-2 |
| Cody Williams | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| Svi Mykhailiuk | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1-6 | 1-4 | 0-0 |
| Kyle Anderson | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| Walter Clayton Jr. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 1-2 |
Lauri Markkanen did not play because of rest, while Walker Kessler was unavailable because of injury or illness.
Keyonte George: Utah’s Leading Scorer
Keyonte George
Utah Jazz
26
Points
3
Rebounds
7
Assists
George led all players in scoring with 26 points. He also recorded seven assists, tying Isaiah Collier for Utah’s team-high in that category.
His shooting efficiency was exceptional in terms of field-goal conversion. George made nine of 11 field-goal attempts, equivalent to approximately 81.8%. He also converted seven of 10 free throws.
His three-point shooting was more limited. George made one of three attempts from beyond the arc, meaning most of his field-goal production came from two-point shots. The supplied statistics do not identify every shot location, so it would be inappropriate to attribute his scoring to a specific mix of drives, midrange attempts, or finishes at the rim.
What the numbers establish is that George scored efficiently and helped create opportunities for teammates. His seven assists were tied for the highest total on either team by a Utah player, giving him a significant dual role as scorer and facilitator.
Despite that performance, Utah lost by 10 points. This does not diminish George’s individual output. Instead, it demonstrates that strong production from a leading scorer cannot guarantee a team victory when other aspects of the game favor the opposition.
Kyle Filipowski: Double-Double on the Boards
Filipowski finished with 14 points, 12 rebounds, and two assists. He made six of nine field-goal attempts and two of three three-point attempts.
His 12 rebounds led all players in the game. That figure gave him a double-double alongside his 14 points, making him Utah’s leading rebounder and one of its most productive all-around contributors.
Filipowski’s three-point shooting also added an important dimension to his performance. He made two of three attempts from long range, allowing him to contribute beyond the immediate area around the basket.
However, Utah’s team rebounding total remained well below Brooklyn’s. Filipowski’s individual success on the glass did not translate into an overall rebounding advantage for the Jazz. Brooklyn had several players collect substantial numbers of rebounds, including Demin, Sharpe, and Claxton.
Filipowski’s line therefore illustrates the difference between individual and team performance. He controlled a significant share of the available rebounds for Utah, but the collective effort still favored Brooklyn.
Brice Sensabaugh: 18 Points from Multiple Scoring Areas
Sensabaugh contributed 18 points and five rebounds. He made six of 14 field-goal attempts, including three of eight from three-point range, and converted all three of his free throws.
He was Utah’s second-leading scorer. His three made three-pointers helped offset Brooklyn’s perimeter production, although the Jazz finished with fewer successful attempts from long range overall.
Sensabaugh’s perfect free-throw shooting was another positive part of his performance. He made all three attempts, avoiding the missed opportunities that affected some of his teammates.
His shooting line was less efficient than George’s, but he still provided meaningful secondary scoring. Utah needed contributions like his to support its leading scorer, especially while trying to overcome Brooklyn’s rebounding advantage.
Isaiah Collier: Seven Assists and Ten Points
Collier recorded 10 points, two rebounds, and seven assists. He made five of 10 field-goal attempts and did not make a three-pointer in his single attempt.
His seven assists tied George for Utah’s team lead. This gave the Jazz two players who each contributed directly to several made baskets by teammates.
Collier’s combination of 10 points and seven assists suggests a balanced role between scoring and playmaking. While his individual scoring total was lower than those of George and Sensabaugh, he helped connect Utah’s offense.
The team’s 26 assists were close to Brooklyn’s 27, indicating that Utah was not substantially behind in recorded playmaking. Its defeat was more closely associated with the disparity in rebounds, the difference in three-pointers made, and Brooklyn’s stronger fourth quarter than with a large gap in assists.
Ace Bailey: Twelve Points
Bailey scored 12 points and added two rebounds. He made five of 10 field-goal attempts, including two of five three-pointers.
His 50% field-goal conversion matched Utah’s overall team percentage. Bailey also provided two made three-pointers, helping the Jazz maintain a perimeter scoring threat.
The challenge for Utah was not a complete inability to score from outside. The team made 10 three-pointers at a 34% rate. Rather, Brooklyn converted four more, increasing the scoring value of its perimeter production.
Bailey’s contribution was useful within Utah’s rotation, but the overall team numbers show that the Jazz needed more production from the combined group to overcome Brooklyn’s advantages elsewhere.
Taylor Hendricks, Cody Williams, and the Supporting Rotation
Hendricks recorded seven points, three rebounds, and one assist. He made three of seven field-goal attempts and one of four three-pointers. His two missed free throws reduced his scoring efficiency.
Williams scored six points and collected two rebounds, making three of six field goals. He did not attempt a three-pointer or a free throw.
Svi Mykhailiuk added three points, two rebounds, and three assists. His only made field goal was a three-pointer, which he converted in one of four attempts from long range.
Kyle Anderson finished with two points, one rebound, and four assists. He made one of two field-goal attempts and helped with ball distribution despite limited scoring.
Walter Clayton Jr. recorded one point, one rebound, and one assist. He did not make a field goal in three attempts but converted one of two free throws.
These supporting performances contributed to Utah’s overall totals, but they also show how the team’s production was distributed. George and Sensabaugh led the scoring, while Filipowski supplied the strongest rebounding performance and George and Collier shared the assist lead.
Why the Brooklyn Nets Won the Game
Brooklyn’s 109-99 victory was built on several measurable advantages rather than one overwhelming statistical category. Utah shot more accurately overall, and the teams made the same number of field goals. The Nets nevertheless found ways to generate more points through three-point shooting, rebounding, and free-throw opportunities.
1. Brooklyn Won the Rebounding Battle
The Nets collected 47 rebounds compared with Utah’s 33. That 14-rebound difference was the largest gap among the major team statistics.
The breakdown makes the advantage even clearer:
- Brooklyn offensive rebounds: 11
- Utah offensive rebounds: 6
- Brooklyn defensive rebounds: 36
- Utah defensive rebounds: 27
Brooklyn recorded five more offensive rebounds and nine more defensive rebounds. The extra offensive rebounds created additional opportunities to retain possession after missed shots.
An offensive rebound does not automatically result in points, but it gives a team another chance to score without requiring a new defensive possession. Across a close game, those additional chances can become important.
The defensive rebounding difference also limited Utah’s opportunities to recover its own misses. The Nets’ advantage on the boards was a team accomplishment, supported by Demin’s 10 rebounds, Sharpe’s nine, and Claxton’s nine.
2. Three-Point Shooting Created a Scoring Advantage
Brooklyn made 14 three-pointers on 40 attempts, while Utah made 10 on 29 attempts.
| Three-point metric | Brooklyn | Utah |
| Made | 14 | 10 |
| Attempted | 40 | 29 |
| Percentage | 35% | 34% |
| Points from made threes | 42 | 30 |
Brooklyn scored 42 points from made three-pointers, compared with Utah’s 30. The 12-point difference in three-point scoring exceeded the final 10-point margin.
This does not mean three-point shooting alone explains the result. Brooklyn also made six more free throws, and the teams differed in rebounding. Still, the extra perimeter scoring was a major component of the victory.
Demin led the way with six made three-pointers. Wilson made three, while Wolf and Sharpe each contributed two and several other players added successful attempts.
Utah had its own perimeter contributors, including Sensabaugh and Bailey. However, its total of 10 made threes was not enough to match Brooklyn’s production.
3. Brooklyn Earned More Free-Throw Attempts
The Nets attempted 28 free throws and made 17. Utah attempted 19 and made 11.
Brooklyn therefore had nine more attempts and made six additional free throws.
The difference was not primarily the accuracy of the two teams. Brooklyn shot 61% at the line, while Utah shot 58%. Both teams left points at the free-throw line, and neither displayed exceptional team accuracy in this category.
The number of attempts nevertheless favored Brooklyn. Thomas made all six of his free throws, while Sharpe converted seven of nine. Together, they made 13 of Brooklyn’s 17 successful free throws.
For Utah, George made seven of 10, and Sensabaugh converted all three of his attempts.
Free-throw attempts can reflect several factors, including how frequently players draw fouls and how teams attack the basket. The available box score establishes the difference in attempts but does not provide enough information to attribute that difference to one specific tactical cause.
4. Brooklyn Finished Stronger in the Fourth Quarter
The fourth quarter was the clearest separation between the teams.
Brooklyn scored 26 points in the final period, while Utah managed 18. The eight-point difference increased Brooklyn’s lead from two points after three quarters to a 10-point final margin.
This sequence is especially important when reviewing the game because the Nets did not build their advantage through a dominant first half. They scored 27 points in each of the first two quarters, while Utah scored 26 in both periods.
The teams then tied the third quarter at 29 points apiece.
Brooklyn’s stronger fourth quarter completed the victory. The supplied statistics do not establish exactly which defensive adjustments or individual plays caused the scoring gap, so the most reliable conclusion is based on the quarter totals: the Nets produced more offense in the final period while holding Utah to its lowest-scoring quarter of the game.
5. Brooklyn Had More Scoring Contributors
Four Brooklyn players scored at least 14 points: Demin with 25, Thomas with 21, Sharpe with 16, and Wolf with 14.
Those four players combined for 76 points, approximately 69.7% of Brooklyn’s final total.
Utah also had four players reach double figures: George with 26, Sensabaugh with 18, Filipowski with 14, and Bailey with 12. They combined for 70 points.
The difference between those groups was six points, but Brooklyn’s other contributors also mattered. Wilson added nine, Mann and Traore each scored seven, and Claxton recorded six.
The lesson is not that Utah lacked offensive production. Instead, Brooklyn obtained slightly more scoring from its leading group and paired that production with a larger overall rebounding total.
Head-to-Head Statistical Comparison
The most useful way to interpret this matchup is to compare the teams across several categories rather than focus exclusively on points.
Shooting Efficiency Versus Shooting Volume
Utah made 50% of its field-goal attempts, compared with Brooklyn’s 48%. That advantage did not translate into a win.
One reason is that field-goal percentage treats a made two-pointer and a made three-pointer as successful field goals equally, even though they are worth different numbers of points.
Brooklyn made the same 39 total field goals as Utah but converted four more three-pointers. This helped the Nets extract greater scoring value from their made shots.
The free-throw totals also mattered. Brooklyn’s 17 made free throws exceeded Utah’s 11, adding another source of points beyond the difference in field-goal production.
Ball Movement Was Nearly Even
Brooklyn recorded 27 assists, compared with Utah’s 26.
This narrow difference suggests that neither team held a major advantage in recorded assists. Both moved the ball effectively enough to generate assisted baskets, although assist totals cannot capture every aspect of offensive coordination.
Traore led Brooklyn with six assists. George and Collier each recorded seven for Utah.
The numbers also demonstrate why assists should not be used as a standalone measure of offensive success. Utah’s two leading playmakers combined for 14 assists, but the team still lost because other parts of the statistical comparison favored Brooklyn.
Turnovers Were Not the Deciding Difference
The Nets committed 12 turnovers, while the Jazz committed 11.
Utah therefore had a one-turnover advantage. That difference was too small to explain the outcome on its own, especially when considering Brooklyn’s 14-rebound lead and 12-point advantage in three-point scoring.
Turnovers remain an important part of basketball analysis because they end possessions without a shot attempt. However, in this game, the supplied figures point toward rebounding and scoring efficiency as more substantial differences.
Defense and Fouls
Brooklyn recorded five blocks and six steals. Utah recorded four blocks and six steals.
The teams were level in steals, and Brooklyn held a one-block advantage. These figures suggest similar totals in those two defensive categories, although blocks and steals do not measure all defensive activity.
Utah committed 23 team fouls, compared with Brooklyn’s 20. The higher foul total coincided with Brooklyn’s greater number of free-throw attempts, but the figures alone cannot establish precisely how each foul affected scoring.
Taken together, the defensive statistics do not show a dramatic advantage in steals or blocks. Brooklyn’s strongest measurable edges were its rebounding, three-point scoring, and late-game performance.
The Impact of Missing Players
The game data lists Lauri Markkanen as unavailable for Utah because of rest and Walker Kessler as unavailable because of injury or illness. Their absences are relevant context when interpreting the roster used for this matchup.
However, the box score does not establish how the game would have changed if either player had participated. It would be speculative to assign a specific number of additional points, rebounds, or wins to their presence.
The most reliable approach is to separate confirmed information from possible explanations.
Confirmed facts include:
- Markkanen did not play because of rest.
- Kessler did not play because of injury or illness.
- Filipowski led Utah with 12 rebounds.
- Brooklyn finished with 47 rebounds, compared with Utah’s 33.
These facts describe the available roster and the outcome. They do not prove that the absences caused Utah’s rebounding deficit or defeat.
The same principle applies to individual player analysis generally. A box score shows what happened, but determining what would have happened under different conditions requires evidence beyond the final statistics.
Season Series and Previous Meeting
The supplied game data identifies the season series as tied 1-1 after Brooklyn’s victory on January 31, 2026.
The previous matchup took place on December 5, 2025, when Utah defeated Brooklyn 123-110.
| Matchup date | Result | Winner |
| December 5, 2025 | Utah Jazz 123, Brooklyn Nets 110 | Utah Jazz |
| January 31, 2026 | Brooklyn Nets 109, Utah Jazz 99 | Brooklyn Nets |
The two results show different scoring patterns. Utah scored 123 points in the earlier meeting, while Brooklyn scored 109 in the January game. In the second matchup, Utah’s total fell to 99, and Brooklyn won by controlling the final quarter.
These results support the conclusion that each team won one of the two listed meetings. They do not, by themselves, establish a long-term trend or predict the outcome of a future matchup.
For readers comparing head-to-head results, it is useful to consider the date, player availability, shooting numbers, and possession-related statistics for each game rather than assuming the previous result determines the next one.
How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
A box score is most useful when its categories are interpreted together. The following approach can help readers assess individual and team performances without drawing conclusions that the data cannot support.
Step 1: Start With Points, but Look Beyond Them
Points identify the leading scorers, but they do not show how efficiently those players produced them.
In this game, George scored 26 points on nine made field goals from 11 attempts. Demin scored 25 on eight made field goals from 16 attempts.
Both players were highly productive, but their field-goal conversion rates were different. Demin also made six three-pointers, while George made one.
These differences help explain how each player reached a similar scoring total.
Step 2: Compare Rebounds and Assists
Rebounds indicate which players secured missed shots, while assists record passes directly credited with made baskets by teammates.
Filipowski led the game with 12 rebounds, and Demin collected 10. George and Collier each recorded seven assists.
Looking at these categories reveals contributions that a scoring-only comparison would miss.
Step 3: Examine Shooting Splits
Field-goal, three-point, and free-throw statistics help distinguish between different scoring methods.
For example, Sharpe made four of five field goals, while Claxton made three of seven. However, Sharpe also made seven free throws, whereas Claxton missed all six of his attempts.
The two players had different scoring profiles despite both contributing to Brooklyn’s interior rotation.
Step 4: Compare Individual Results With Team Totals
Individual statistics must be considered in the context of the whole game.
George’s 26 points led all players, but Utah lost. Filipowski led in rebounds, but the Jazz lost the team rebounding battle.
On the Brooklyn side, Demin’s double-double was impressive, but his contribution was reinforced by Thomas’s 21 points and Sharpe’s 16.
Team totals explain how individual performances combined to produce the final result.
Step 5: Separate Facts From Interpretation
A useful statistical analysis distinguishes between directly recorded facts and possible explanations.
For example, the game data confirms that Brooklyn scored eight more points than Utah in the fourth quarter. It does not establish which exact coaching decision caused that difference.
Similarly, the Nets’ 14-rebound advantage is a confirmed statistical difference. Attributing that advantage to a particular defensive scheme would require additional evidence.
This approach makes game analysis more accurate and prevents a box score from being used to support claims it cannot verify.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Utah Jazz vs Brooklyn Nets game on January 31, 2026?
The Brooklyn Nets defeated the Utah Jazz 109-99 at Delta Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Brooklyn led by two points after each of the first two quarters and pulled away in the fourth.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Keyonte George of the Utah Jazz led all players with 26 points. Brooklyn’s Egor Demin followed with 25 points and also recorded 10 rebounds and four assists.
3. What were Egor Demin’s stats against the Utah Jazz?
Demin finished with 25 points, 10 rebounds, and four assists. He made eight of 16 field goals, six of 12 three-pointers, and three of four free throws.
4. Which player recorded the most rebounds?
Kyle Filipowski led all players with 12 rebounds for Utah. Egor Demin recorded 10 rebounds for Brooklyn, while Day’Ron Sharpe and Nic Claxton collected nine each.
5. Why did the Brooklyn Nets win?
Brooklyn won through a combination of stronger rebounding, more made three-pointers, additional free-throw scoring, and a better fourth quarter. The Nets collected 47 rebounds to Utah’s 33 and outscored the Jazz 26-18 in the final period.
6. How many assists did each team record?
Brooklyn recorded 27 assists, while Utah recorded 26. Nolan Traore led Brooklyn with six assists, and Keyonte George and Isaiah Collier led Utah with seven apiece.
Conclusion
The January 31, 2026, matchup between the Brooklyn Nets and Utah Jazz demonstrated how several small advantages can combine to determine an NBA result. Brooklyn won 109-99 despite shooting a lower overall field-goal percentage than Utah.
Egor Demin delivered Brooklyn’s leading all-around performance with 25 points and 10 rebounds, while Cam Thomas added 21 points and Day’Ron Sharpe contributed 16. For Utah, Keyonte George led all players with 26 points, and Kyle Filipowski recorded a game-high 12 rebounds.
The decisive statistical differences were Brooklyn’s 47-33 rebounding advantage, its 14-10 edge in made three-pointers, and its 26-18 advantage in the fourth quarter. The teams were nearly even in assists and turnovers, showing that the victory was not driven by every category favoring Brooklyn.
Ultimately, the utah jazz vs brooklyn nets match player stats provide a clear picture of the result: Utah had efficient individual performances, but Brooklyn generated more rebounds, converted more three-pointers, and finished the game with greater scoring momentum. Those measurable differences explain the 10-point margin without relying on unsupported assumptions about individual plays or coaching decisions.
