MEM

2025-26 Season

CEDRIC COWARD

Memphis Grizzlies | Guard | 6-5
Cedric Coward
13.6 PPG
5.9 RPG
2.8 APG
25.8 MPG
+4.1 Impact

Coward produces at an above average rate for a 26-minute workload.

Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+4.1
Scoring +12.1
Points 13.6 PPG = +9.3
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.8
Creation +1.0
Creation 2.8 AST/g = +1.0
Turnovers -3.9
Turnovers 1.7/g = -3.9
Hustle & Effort +5.3
Rebounds 5.9 RPG = +5.3
Raw Impact +14.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.4
Net Impact
+4.1
76th pctl vs Guards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 245 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 70th
13.6 PPG
Efficiency 81th
58.9% TS
Playmaking 54th
2.8 APG
Rebounding 96th
5.9 RPG
Defense 62th
+7.9/g
Hustle 98th
+19.4/g
Creation 75th
+3.69/g
Shot Making 59th
+7.06/g
TO Discipline 34th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

If impact was negative despite high scoring, explain what hidden costs dragged them down." -> 10/29 vs PHX: 14 points (above avg), -3.2 impact. Explained by "defensive rotations were frequently a step slow". Are 14 points considered "high scoring"? It's his 5th highest scoring game out of 20. It's above his average. It fits perfectly. Let's check the exact text of 10/29 vs PHX: "10/29 vs PHX: 14pts/4reb/1ast in 28min | FG:5/10 3P:2/3 | Impact:-3.2 (box:+5.8 hustle:+3.5 def:+2.5) | Bench | Defensive rotations were frequently a step slow, bleeding value despite capable offensive execution." My text: "...where he scored a capable 14 points but posted a frustrating -3.2 impact because his defensive rotations were frequently a step slow." Matches perfectly. Let's check the exact text of 10/31 vs LAL: "10/31 vs LAL: 13pts/10reb/3ast in 26min | FG:4/11 3P:0/4 | Impact:+8.1 (box:+16.3 hustle:+3.5 def:+1.7)

Cedric Coward spent this stretch oscillating wildly between dominant interior bully and deeply frustrating perimeter chucker. The contrast was jarring. During the 12/30 vs PHI matchup, he battered the opposition for 28 points and 16 rebounds, generating a massive +13.4 impact score simply by unleashing unrelenting aggression on the offensive glass. Even when his jumper completely abandoned him on 01/25 vs DEN, he still scraped out a +0.7 impact on an ugly 4-for-12 shooting night because his relentless hustle created vital second-chance opportunities. Yet, far too often, Coward sabotaged his own value by falling in love with terrible habits. Look no further than his 12/28 vs WAS performance, where a decent 11-point outing translated to a dismal -4.9 impact because he bled momentum through poorly timed fouls and careless ball security. If he wants to be a reliable weapon, he has to stop settling for bad decisions and get back to doing the dirty work.

Cedric Coward’s midseason stretch was defined by maddening volatility, oscillating wildly between dominant two-way flashes and empty-calorie scoring nights. He frequently bled value despite finding the basket, as seen on 03/18 vs NYK where his 15 points were completely undone by poor off-ball defensive positioning, resulting in a brutal -6.8 impact score. When he actually locked in, however, the results were staggering. On 03/28 vs CHI, Coward put together an absolute masterclass, suffocating opposing wings and scoring 24 points to post a massive +16.7 impact score. He didn't always need heavy scoring volume to swing a matchup. During his 03/10 vs PHI appearance, relentless positioning on the glass netted him 16 rebounds and a +6.3 impact score by generating vital second-chance opportunities. If Coward wants to be a reliable rotation fixture, he must eliminate the hidden mistakes and contested jumpers that routinely sabotage his baseline production.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Volatile for his role. Coward has noticeable ups and downs, with scoring moving ~5 points between games.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 61% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Coward consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +5.0, second-half: +3.1. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 7 games. Longest cold streak: 4 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 68 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

D. DiVincenzo 64.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 15
S. Bey 60.2 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.08
PTS 5
K. Leonard 58.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 14
J. Champagnie 42.6 poss
FG% 30.8%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 11
Z. LaVine 39.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 8
Z. Williamson 36.9 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.27
PTS 10
F. Wagner 36.0 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 15
C. Cunningham 34.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 5
A. Thompson 34.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
A. Edwards 32.7 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

S. Bey 77.2 poss
FG% 52.6%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.32
PTS 25
D. DiVincenzo 68.5 poss
FG% 70.0%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 22
J. Smith Jr. 49.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.24
PTS 12
J. Champagnie 48.6 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11
C. Cunningham 48.2 poss
FG% 53.8%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.33
PTS 16
K. Leonard 47.1 poss
FG% 61.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.45
PTS 21
K. Durant 46.8 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
J. Williams 43.7 poss
FG% 31.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 11
F. Wagner 42.2 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.24
PTS 10
D. Hunter 39.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

62
Games
13.6
PPG
5.9
RPG
2.8
APG
0.6
SPG
0.4
BPG
47.1
FG%
33.8
3P%
84.3
FT%
25.8
MPG

GAME LOG

62 games played