Memphis Grizzlies

Western Conference

Memphis
Grizzlies

25-57
L7

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Zach Edey
Center Yr 1 11G (11S)
+11.0
13.6 pts
11.1 reb
1.1 ast
25.8 min
Ty Jerome
Guard-Forward Yr 6 15G (15S)
+8.6
19.7 pts
2.8 reb
5.7 ast
22.6 min
Jaren Jackson Jr.
Forward-Center Yr 7 45G (45S)
+6.6
19.2 pts
5.8 reb
1.9 ast
30.7 min

This stretch of the season was defined by a volatile tug-of-war between terrifying defensive dominance and maddening offensive inconsistency. Jackson frequently controlled games without actually shooting well. On 12/07 vs POR, he managed just 6 points but posted a +4.3 impact score because his relentless rim deterrence completely altered the geometry of the court. Conversely, his scoring volume sometimes actively hurt the team. During the 12/23 vs UTA matchup, he dropped 21 points but recorded a -0.7 impact score because hidden costs like live-ball turnovers dragged down his overall value. When he actually married offensive execution with his elite weak-side help, the results were devastating. Look no further than 12/26 vs MIL, where he tallied 24 points and a massive +14.8 impact score by utterly suffocating the opponent's interior attack.

Santi Aldama
Forward-Center Yr 4 43G (11S)
+6.5
14.0 pts
6.7 reb
2.9 ast
27.9 min

Extreme volatility defined Santi Aldama's mid-season stretch, as he oscillated wildly between looking like an unstoppable offensive force and a complete liability. When he actively attacked the defense, the results were staggering. On 12/20 vs WAS, he erupted for 37 points and 10 rebounds, generating a massive +22.2 impact score through brilliant two-way dominance and ruthless shooting efficiency. Yet, that aggression frequently evaporated. Just two days later on 12/22 vs OKC, he lazily settled for contested perimeter jumpers instead of attacking closeouts, destroying his offensive value to post a brutal -8.1 impact rating. Even when his scoring volume was modest, he could still dictate games if he stayed engaged on the margins.

Cedric Coward
Guard Yr 0 62G (47S)
+4.1
13.6 pts
5.9 reb
2.8 ast
25.8 min

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.

Jock Landale
Center Yr 4 45G (25S)
+3.9
11.3 pts
6.5 reb
1.7 ast
23.6 min

A turbulent demotion from the starting lineup to the bench defined this chaotic stretch for Jock Landale. When his jumper was falling, he looked like a dangerous floor-stretching weapon. During 02/05 vs UTA, he caught absolute fire, draining five threes for 26 points and 11 rebounds to generate a massive +19.9 impact score by pulling opposing bigs out of the paint. He replicated that magic off the bench during 02/22 vs BKN, where a perfect 3-for-3 mark from deep fueled a +15.4 impact that completely broke Brooklyn's coverage principles. But when his touch vanished, his minutes became actively harmful. A total inability to convert easy looks during 03/10 vs DAL resulted in a brutal -9.2 impact score, turning his scoreless shift into an offensive black hole. Still, Landale occasionally salvaged quiet nights through sheer effort, like his +3.0 impact on just six points during 02/24 vs WAS, driven entirely by gritty trench work and an elite +5.2 hustle score.

Ja Morant
Guard Yr 6 20G (20S)
+2.7
19.4 pts
3.2 reb
8.1 ast
28.4 min

A wildly erratic start to the season defined Ja Morant's first twenty games, revealing a frustrating tug-of-war between explosive downhill dominance and self-destructive shot selection. When he played with patience, he was completely unguardable. Look at his brilliant performance on 10/22 vs NOP, where a masterclass in relentless downhill attacking yielded 35 points and a massive +16.1 impact score. Yet, he too often fell in love with forcing wild attempts into heavy traffic. On 11/11 vs NYK, despite tallying 16 points and 10 assists, his insistence on chucking bad interior looks resulted in a disastrous -21.3 impact. Even when his shot actually fell, hidden costs frequently dragged him into the red. During the 12/28 vs WAS matchup, he scored an efficient 21 points, but careless high-leverage turnovers and lazy defensive lapses in transition wiped out that offensive production to leave him with a -2.6 impact. Morant remains an elite dual-threat weapon, but his refusal to stop forcing the issue against set defenses continues to sabotage his overall value.

Cam Spencer
Guard Yr 1 72G (20S)
+1.6
11.1 pts
2.5 reb
5.6 ast
23.8 min

This stretch of the season was defined by maddening inconsistency, with Cam Spencer swinging wildly between lethal offensive eruptions and complete disappearing acts. During an icy 01/28 vs CHA start, his broken perimeter jumper yielded a horrific -14.2 impact score as defenders simply ignored him. Yet, when he engaged physically and hunted his spots, he could completely tilt a game. Look no further than 02/27 vs DAL, where a massive 25-point barrage off the bench fueled a stellar +14.5 impact score. He even found ways to drive winning basketball without a heavy scoring load, logging a +6.4 impact score on 02/20 vs UTA by dishing out 10 assists and tearing the defense apart with precise orchestration. However, individual scoring didn't always translate to overall value for the volatile guard. Despite dropping 16 points on 02/02 vs MIN, he posted a -1.3 impact score because a glaring lack of off-ball physicality allowed opponents to bully him out of the play. If Spencer wants to be a reliable rotation piece, he must eradicate these passive stretches and commit to the dirty work when his jump shot abandons him.

GG Jackson
Forward Yr 2 55G (28S)
+0.8
12.5 pts
4.3 reb
1.5 ast
21.4 min

GG Jackson’s midseason stretch was defined by a chaotic transition into the starting lineup, marked by wild swings between dominant interior play and frustrating isolation habits. He was an absolute wrecking ball on 02/21 vs MIA, racking up 28 points on 11-of-17 shooting to post a massive +12.5 impact score by completely dominating his interior matchups. Yet, when given a longer leash as a starter, his worst habits often resurfaced to hurt the team. On 03/04 vs POR, he poured in 20 points, but his dismal -5.3 impact score reveals the hidden costs of his night. High-volume, low-efficiency isolation attempts severely disrupted the offensive flow, bleeding away the value of his raw scoring output. Sometimes, less was actually more. During the 03/03 vs MIN matchup, Jackson attempted just five shots for 12 points, but his +5.8 impact score was driven entirely by elite positioning on the glass, pulling down 11 rebounds to kill second-chance opportunities.

Olivier-Maxence Prosper
Forward Yr 2 53G (24S)
+0.6
10.0 pts
3.5 reb
1.0 ast
18.6 min

Olivier-Maxence Prosper spent this twenty-game stretch riding a chaotic pendulum between ruthless two-way efficiency and baffling mental lapses. When he fully committed to his defensive assignments and decisive cuts, he was an absolute wrecking ball on the floor. During the 02/27 vs DAL matchup, he paired 16 points with 10 rebounds to generate a massive +16.4 impact, driven entirely by his suffocating defensive presence against the opposing wings. Even when his shot volume dropped to just 9 points on 02/21 vs MIA, he still managed a +6.6 impact by maximizing his playmaking and defensive utility to elevate the starting unit. Yet, his value cratered the moment he lost focus. Despite an efficient 15 points on 03/09 vs BKN, careless ball security and live-ball turnovers tanked his impact to a dismal -7.4. Ultimately, he dictates his own worth through hustle and discipline rather than raw scoring totals.

Taylor Hendricks
Forward Yr 2 26G (11S)
+0.3
10.6 pts
4.7 reb
1.2 ast
24.1 min

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.

Jaylen Wells
Forward Yr 1 69G (69S)
+0.1
12.5 pts
3.2 reb
1.6 ast
26.4 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by empty-calorie scoring binges that repeatedly masked underlying structural flaws in Jaylen Wells's game. Look no further than the 02/11 vs DEN matchup. He poured in 17 points on hyper-efficient 7/9 shooting, yet posted a baffling -5.0 impact score. That negative mark stemmed entirely from a disastrous defensive showing (def:-9.5), as his aggressive offensive approach completely overwhelmed his focus on the other end of the floor. He eventually aligned his volume with actual winning basketball on 02/21 vs MIA. An unexpected offensive explosion yielded 25 points, driving a robust +8.8 impact score as he simply outgunned the opposition. The illusion did not last. By the 03/07 vs LAC game, Wells bricked his way to a dismal 2/8 mark from deep, combining terrible perimeter shot selection with porous point-of-attack defense to crater his overall value with a disastrous -13.2 impact score.

Kyle Anderson
Forward-Guard Yr 11 4G (3S)
-0.3
9.2 pts
3.5 reb
0.8 ast
22.3 min

This midseason stretch was defined by a transition to the bench and a crippling offensive passivity that frequently turned Anderson into a spacing liability. During a disastrous Mar 13 vs GSW appearance, he logged zero points and a brutal -9.2 impact score because his total refusal to attack created half-court spacing nightmares. Even when he actually found the basket, his glacial tempo carried hidden costs. On Mar 18 vs UTA, he managed a relatively high eight points and six assists, yet still posted a -5.7 impact because his methodical pace severely bogged down the offense. Still, his elite basketball IQ occasionally salvaged his value on nights his shot completely vanished. Despite scoring just two points on Apr 02 vs DET, Anderson generated a +2.0 overall impact. He anchored the second unit with disruptive length and masterful weak-side help, fueling a massive +11.5 defensive impact mark. He remains a brilliant defensive connector, but his utter lack of scoring gravity makes him a tricky puzzle for any coaching staff to solve.

Javon Small
Guard Yr 0 41G (12S)
-0.4
9.7 pts
3.1 reb
3.7 ast
20.2 min

This stretch of the season was defined by a volatile tug-of-war between Javon Small's lethal perimeter shot-making and his occasionally reckless decision-making. When dialed in, he was an absolute force. He eviscerated the defense on Mar 13 vs DET for 23 points, posting a massive +18.5 impact score by pairing his offensive punch with suffocating defensive activity. He did not even need to score to tilt the floor, managing just 2 points on Mar 07 vs LAC but still generating a +3.8 impact through sheer hustle and elite effort on the margins. Yet, his aggression sometimes morphed into recklessness. During a Mar 10 vs PHI matchup, forced entry passes and sloppy ball security completely derailed his rhythm, resulting in a brutal -7.7 impact despite handing out 7 assists. Similarly, he dropped 17 points on Mar 21 vs CHA but suffered a -3.6 impact because hidden defensive lapses quietly sabotaged the team's momentum.

Rayan Rupert
Guard-Forward Yr 2 16G (8S)
-1.0
12.2 pts
6.4 reb
2.1 ast
30.9 min

This stretch of the season was defined by a maddening inconsistency, where Rayan Rupert bounced between providing useful energy and looking completely unplayable. When he stayed within a narrow role, he found genuine success. Take his outing on 02/23 vs SAC, where exceptional positional rebounding and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a +5.2 impact score despite modest scoring. However, increased minutes and spot starts later in the rotation frequently exposed his glaring flaws. Look at his performance on 04/01 vs DAL, where a seemingly solid 13-point, 7-rebound effort actually yielded a -3.9 impact score. Hidden mistakes like poorly timed fouls and defensive breakdowns completely negated his offensive volume that night. The absolute nadir arrived on 03/23 vs ATL. Logging 30 minutes as a starter without scoring a single point, his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to ignore him entirely, torpedoing the lineup and resulting in a catastrophic -24.0 impact score.

Tyler Burton
Forward Yr 0 12G
-1.8
10.8 pts
4.2 reb
1.0 ast
25.6 min
Dariq Whitehead
Guard-Forward Yr 2 6G (2S)
-1.8
16.3 pts
4.0 reb
1.5 ast
30.5 min
Adama Bal
Guard Yr 0 8G (1S)
-2.5
10.4 pts
3.1 reb
2.4 ast
30.2 min
Lucas Williamson
Guard Yr 0 7G (2S)
-2.8
10.4 pts
5.4 reb
2.6 ast
32.0 min
Scotty Pippen Jr.
Guard Yr 3 10G (6S)
-3.0
11.4 pts
2.2 reb
4.7 ast
21.2 min
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
Guard Yr 12 51G (14S)
-3.2
8.4 pts
2.5 reb
2.7 ast
21.3 min

Wild inconsistency defined this turbulent stretch off the bench for Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, who violently swung between elite two-way execution and total offensive disappearance. His value plummeted when his shot selection deteriorated, perfectly captured on 12/17 vs MIN. Despite scoring 12 points, he posted a dreadful -8.8 impact score because clanking a high volume of contested looks actively sabotaged the team's offensive efficiency. Conversely, he could still swing games without filling the scoring column. During the 12/05 vs LAC matchup, Caldwell-Pope managed just 5 points but logged a +1.5 impact by relying entirely on connective passing and mistake-free basketball. When fully engaged, his ceiling remains dangerously high. He torched the nets on 01/02 vs LAL, pouring in 20 points for a massive +10.7 impact fueled by blistering perimeter efficiency and relentless off-ball movement. Ultimately, he is a volatile luxury whose passive outings carry severe hidden costs.

John Konchar
Guard Yr 6 30G (1S)
-4.3
3.2 pts
3.1 reb
1.3 ast
14.5 min

John Konchar’s midseason stretch was a masterclass in the razor-thin margin for error when a rotation player refuses to shoot the basketball. Look no further than 01/30 vs NOP, where he scored a stretch-high 9 points but posted a -3.8 impact because he bled points as a frequent target in pick-and-roll switches. Conversely, his flawless execution of role-player duties on 01/28 vs CHA yielded a massive +11.2 impact despite taking just three shots. He created immense value entirely in the margins that night, using relentless energy and fundamentally sound defensive positioning to tilt the floor without demanding the ball. However, his offensive invisibility often ruined his overall value. During a disastrous showing on 01/23 vs NOP, Konchar completely removed himself from the offense, allowing his defender to freely roam and saddling him with a brutal -9.4 impact score. When a wing operates as a total zero on the perimeter, even the grittiest hustle plays cannot always save them from dragging down the lineup.

Vince Williams Jr.
Guard Yr 3 34G (12S)
-4.3
8.0 pts
4.0 reb
4.4 ast
21.6 min

A maddeningly volatile slump defined Vince Williams Jr.’s mid-season stretch, characterized by erratic shot selection and defensive lapses that frequently crippled his team's second unit. He initially looked like a premier rotational wing during the 01/06 vs SAS matchup, where hyper-efficient perimeter execution and relentless off-ball movement fueled a massive +9.4 impact score. The magic did not last. Hidden costs quickly began dragging down his overall value, even on nights when his raw box score looked passable. Take the 01/30 vs NOP contest, where a seemingly decent 13-point outing actually yielded a harmful -5.2 impact. Rather than playing within the flow of the offense, he completely bogged down the unit by repeatedly holding the ball too long against zone coverages. His utility bottomed out entirely during the 02/20 vs MEM game, resulting in a catastrophic -12.1 impact score. Clunky offensive execution and a step-slow defensive rotation made him a massive liability that night, confirming that his ball-stopping habits must be corrected if he wants to survive in a modern rotation.

PJ Hall
Center Yr 1 7G
-4.4
1.9 pts
1.3 reb
0.3 ast
3.8 min
Taj Gibson
Forward Yr 16 10G (1S)
-5.9
3.4 pts
2.7 reb
0.6 ast
9.7 min
Christian Koloko
Center Yr 3 11G (2S)
-6.0
2.6 pts
4.0 reb
0.9 ast
17.7 min

Christian Koloko’s first twenty games were defined by a volatile tug-of-war between game-wrecking rim protection and complete offensive invisibility. When he was locked in, his sheer size altered the math for opponents. Take his performance on 12/28 vs WAS, where he managed just 4 points but generated a stellar +6.0 impact score because his relentless rim-running and elite shot-alteration changed the geometry of the court. He hit an even higher ceiling on 01/26 vs IND, capitalizing on perfect 6-for-6 shooting around the basket to post 12 points and a massive +12.4 impact. Yet, those towering peaks were routinely erased by staggering drop-offs. During a spot start on 12/30 vs PHI, his impact plummeted to -9.0 while going scoreless, entirely because sluggish footwork made him a glaring target for opposing guards in pick-and-roll switches. He flashes the imposing verticality of a genuine defensive anchor. However, until he stops fumbling catches and logging empty offensive possessions, entrusting him with heavy rotational minutes remains a wild gamble.

DeJon Jarreau
Guard Yr 2 11G
-6.0
8.0 pts
4.6 reb
3.3 ast
21.0 min
Toby Okani
Forward Yr 0 6G (4S)
-6.0
10.0 pts
3.5 reb
1.0 ast
36.2 min
Jahmai Mashack
Guard Yr 0 31G (7S)
-6.5
6.2 pts
2.6 reb
2.2 ast
21.7 min

Jahmai Mashack’s early season was defined by a jarring tug-of-war between high-motor defensive value and crippling offensive hesitancy. He frequently sabotaged his own minutes by passing up open looks and destroying half-court spacing. This frustrating dynamic was glaringly obvious on 02/20 vs UTA. Despite scoring 11 points, he posted a dismal -5.7 impact score because empty possessions and spacing issues completely undid his otherwise fantastic defensive metrics. Conversely, he found ways to be highly effective without even looking at the rim. During the 02/04 vs SAC matchup, Mashack scored just 2 points but generated a +2.0 impact by abandoning his scoring role entirely to focus on lockdown defense and high-motor hustle plays. Unfortunately, when he lost that aggressive edge, the floor completely fell out from under him. A total offensive disappearing act on 02/21 vs MIA yielded a brutal -11.1 impact, highlighting exactly why his erratic assertiveness makes him such a volatile rotational gamble.

Walter Clayton Jr.
Guard Yr 0 24G (6S)
-8.2
9.7 pts
2.1 reb
5.7 ast
25.0 min

This grueling twenty-game stretch was defined by a severe crisis of offensive identity, as Walter Clayton Jr. repeatedly derailed possessions with forced looks and contested isolations. His 03/09 vs BKN outing captured this frustrating dynamic perfectly. Despite scoring 13 points, he posted a brutal -12.5 impact score because he bogged down the offense by heavily relying on contested isolation plays that yielded terrible returns. The bottom fell out completely on 02/25 vs GSW. During that game, a disastrous 1-for-8 shooting performance and relentless shot-forcing tanked his overall impact to a staggering -13.4. Yet, a brief glimpse of his actual value emerged on 03/01 vs IND when he finally embraced a pure facilitator role. Sacrificing his own scoring to hand out 14 assists, Clayton picked apart the defense to earn a +3.9 impact score despite scoring just 7 points, revealing exactly how effective he can be when he stops hunting bad jumpers.

GAME LOG

L
MEM MEM 101
132 HOU HOU
Apr 12 Analysis available
-31
L
MEM MEM 101
147 UTA UTA
Apr 10 Analysis available
-46
L
MEM MEM 119
136 DEN DEN
Apr 8 Analysis available
-17
L
CLE CLE 142
126 MEM MEM
Apr 6 Analysis available
-16
L
MEM MEM 115
131 MIL MIL
Apr 5 Analysis available
-16
L
TOR TOR 128
96 MEM MEM
Apr 3 Analysis available
-32
L
PHX PHX 131
105 MEM MEM
Mar 30 Analysis available
-26
W
CHI CHI 124
125 MEM MEM
Mar 29 Analysis available
+1
L
HOU HOU 119
109 MEM MEM
Mar 28 Analysis available
-10
L
SAS SAS 123
98 MEM MEM
Mar 25 Analysis available
-25
L
MEM MEM 107
146 ATL ATL
Mar 23 Analysis available
-39
L
MEM MEM 101
124 CHA CHA
Mar 21 Analysis available
-23
L
BOS BOS 117
112 MEM MEM
Mar 20 Analysis available
-5
W
DEN DEN 118
125 MEM MEM
Mar 18 Analysis available
+7
L
NYK NYK 130
119 MEM MEM
Mar 18 Analysis available
-11
L
MEM MEM 107
132 CHI CHI
Mar 16 Analysis available
-25
L
MEM MEM 110
126 DET DET
Mar 13 Analysis available
-16
L
DAL DAL 120
112 MEM MEM
Mar 12 Analysis available
-8
L
MEM MEM 129
139 PHI PHI
Mar 10 Analysis available
-10
L
MEM MEM 115
126 BKN BKN
Mar 9 Analysis available
-11
L
LAC LAC 123
120 MEM MEM
Mar 7 Analysis available
-3
L
POR POR 122
114 MEM MEM
Mar 4 Analysis available
-8
L
MEM MEM 110
117 MIN MIN
Mar 3 Analysis available
-7
W
MEM MEM 125
106 IND IND
Mar 1 Analysis available
+19
W
MEM MEM 124
105 DAL DAL
Feb 27 Analysis available
+19
L
GSW GSW 133
112 MEM MEM
Feb 25 Analysis available
-21
L
SAC SAC 123
114 MEM MEM
Feb 23 Analysis available
-9
L
MEM MEM 120
136 MIA MIA
Feb 21 Analysis available
-16
W
UTA UTA 114
123 MEM MEM
Feb 20 Analysis available
+9
L
MEM MEM 116
122 DEN DEN
Feb 11 Analysis available
-6
L
MEM MEM 113
114 GSW GSW
Feb 9 Analysis available
-1
L
MEM MEM 115
122 POR POR
Feb 7 Analysis available
-7
L
MEM MEM 115
135 POR POR
Feb 6 Analysis available
-20
W
MEM MEM 129
125 SAC SAC
Feb 4 Analysis available
+4
W
MIN MIN 128
137 MEM MEM
Feb 2 Analysis available
+9
L
MIN MIN 131
114 MEM MEM
Jan 31 Analysis available
-17
L
MEM MEM 106
114 NOP NOP
Jan 30 Analysis available
-8
L
CHA CHA 112
97 MEM MEM
Jan 28 Analysis available
-15
L
MEM MEM 99
108 HOU HOU
Jan 27 Analysis available
-9
L
NOP NOP 133
127 MEM MEM
Jan 24 Analysis available
-6
L
ATL ATL 124
122 MEM MEM
Jan 22 Analysis available
-2
W
ORL ORL 109
126 MEM MEM
Jan 18 Analysis available
+17
L
MEM MEM 111
118 ORL ORL
Jan 15 Analysis available
-7
W
BKN BKN 98
103 MEM MEM
Jan 11 Analysis available
+5
L
OKC OKC 117
116 MEM MEM
Jan 10 Analysis available
-1
L
PHX PHX 117
98 MEM MEM
Jan 8 Analysis available
-19
W
SAS SAS 105
106 MEM MEM
Jan 7 Analysis available
+1
L
MEM MEM 114
120 LAL LAL
Jan 5 Analysis available
-6
L
MEM MEM 121
128 LAL LAL
Jan 3 Analysis available
-7
L
PHI PHI 139
136 MEM MEM
Dec 31 Analysis available
-3
L
MEM MEM 112
116 WAS WAS
Dec 28 Analysis available
-4
W
MIL MIL 104
125 MEM MEM
Dec 27 Analysis available
+21
W
MEM MEM 137
128 UTA UTA
Dec 24 Analysis available
+9
L
MEM MEM 103
119 OKC OKC
Dec 23 Analysis available
-16
L
WAS WAS 130
122 MEM MEM
Dec 21 Analysis available
-8
W
MEM MEM 116
110 MIN MIN
Dec 18 Analysis available
+6
W
MEM MEM 121
103 LAC LAC
Dec 16 Analysis available
+18
L
UTA UTA 130
126 MEM MEM
Dec 13 Analysis available
-4
W
POR POR 96
119 MEM MEM
Dec 7 Analysis available
+23
W
LAC LAC 98
107 MEM MEM
Dec 6 Analysis available
+9
L
MEM MEM 119
126 SAS SAS
Dec 3 Analysis available
-7
W
MEM MEM 115
107 SAC SAC
Dec 1 Analysis available
+8
W
MEM MEM 112
107 LAC LAC
Nov 29 Analysis available
+5
W
MEM MEM 133
128 NOP NOP
Nov 27 Analysis available
+5
L
DEN DEN 125
115 MEM MEM
Nov 25 Analysis available
-10
W
MEM MEM 102
96 DAL DAL
Nov 23 Analysis available
+6
W
SAC SAC 96
137 MEM MEM
Nov 21 Analysis available
+41
L
MEM MEM 101
111 SAS SAS
Nov 19 Analysis available
-10
L
MEM MEM 100
108 CLE CLE
Nov 15 Analysis available
-8
L
MEM MEM 95
131 BOS BOS
Nov 13 Analysis available
-36
L
MEM MEM 120
133 NYK NYK
Nov 12 Analysis available
-13
L
OKC OKC 114
100 MEM MEM
Nov 9 Analysis available
-14
W
DAL DAL 104
118 MEM MEM
Nov 8 Analysis available
+14
L
HOU HOU 124
109 MEM MEM
Nov 6 Analysis available
-15
L
DET DET 114
106 MEM MEM
Nov 4 Analysis available
-8
L
MEM MEM 104
117 TOR TOR
Nov 2 Analysis available
-13
L
LAL LAL 117
112 MEM MEM
Nov 1 Analysis available
-5
W
MEM MEM 114
113 PHX PHX
Oct 30 Analysis available
+1
L
MEM MEM 115
131 GSW GSW
Oct 27 Analysis available
-16
W
IND IND 103
128 MEM MEM
Oct 25 Analysis available
+25
L
MIA MIA 146
114 MEM MEM
Oct 24 Analysis available
-32
W
NOP NOP 122
128 MEM MEM
Oct 22 Analysis available
+6