MEM

2025-26 Season

TAYLOR HENDRICKS

Memphis Grizzlies | Forward | 6-9
Taylor Hendricks
7.4 PPG
3.7 RPG
0.9 APG
19.0 MPG
-3.5 Impact

Hendricks produces at an below average rate for a 19-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
-3.5
Scoring +6.4
Points 7.4 PPG = +4.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.7
Creation +0.3
Creation 0.9 AST/g = +0.3
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 0.8/g = -1.9
Defense +0.7
Defense 0.8 STL, 0.5 BLK = +0.7
Hustle & Effort +3.2
Rebounds 3.7 RPG = +3.2
Raw Impact +8.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −12.2
Net Impact
-3.5
28th pctl vs Forwards

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 234 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 40th
7.9 PPG
Efficiency 54th
57.3% TS
Playmaking 18th
1.0 APG
Rebounding 47th
4.0 RPG
Defense 97th
+13.5/g
Hustle 48th
+11.7/g
Creation 16th
+1.49/g
Shot Making 43th
+5.34/g
TO Discipline 55th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Extreme inconsistency and maddening offensive passivity defined this chaotic stretch for Taylor Hendricks. He occasionally managed to affect winning without scoring, like on 11/07 vs MIN when he posted a +2.2 impact despite tallying just four points because his phenomenal weakside rim protection erased multiple drives. Too often, though, his refusal to look at the basket actively harmed the team. During a brutal outing on 12/18 vs LAL, he registered a disastrous -8.7 impact score because his complete offensive invisibility allowed defenders to treat him as a non-factor and cramp the floor. The ceiling is undeniably high when he actually hunts his shot. He erupted on 12/23 vs MEM for 21 points and a massive +11.6 impact, pairing aggressive offensive execution with lockdown defensive versatility. He clearly possesses the two-way tools to swing games, but he must stop floating aimlessly around the perimeter to become a reliable rotation fixture.

An excruciating offensive slump defined this stretch for Taylor Hendricks. He frequently drifted around the perimeter as a total non-factor, turning him into a persistent liability. During a spot start on 01/10 vs CHA, his inability to hit from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, resulting in a disastrous -9.9 impact score. Things hit rock bottom off the bench on 01/27 vs LAC. He missed all four of his field goal attempts in just 12 minutes, posting a -12.2 impact score because his complete lack of shooting gravity created an offensive black hole. Even when his shots finally started falling, hidden costs often dragged down his overall value. On 02/11 vs DEN, he managed a respectable 10 points, but defensive positioning errors and slow rotations bled points on the other end to yield a -5.1 impact score. Unless he fixes his rushed catch-and-shoot mechanics and locks in defensively, his rotation minutes will continue to evaporate.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Inconsistent. Hendricks has clear good-night/bad-night splits, with scoring swinging ~6 points between games. You're never quite sure which version shows up.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 46% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Hendricks locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -5.7, second-half: -1.4. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 4 games. Longest cold streak: 17 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 66 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

N. Jokić 45.3 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
B. Carlson 41.0 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
M. Bridges 39.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
K. Johnson 31.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
Q. Post 26.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 6
J. Grant 26.3 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 7
V. Krejčí 26.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Tatum 25.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4
C. Cunningham 24.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
M. Potter 24.6 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.65
PTS 16

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Jokić 49.2 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 20
M. Bridges 33.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6
J. Grant 29.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 12
O. Ighodaro 27.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
N. Marshall 27.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
J. Landale 27.4 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 10
M. Diabaté 27.4 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 7
B. Carlson 24.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 5
A. Sengun 23.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 6
T. Camara 23.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

59
Games
7.4
PPG
3.7
RPG
0.9
APG
0.8
SPG
0.5
BPG
45.9
FG%
34.2
3P%
68.1
FT%
19.0
MPG

GAME LOG

59 games played