GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

A disastrous defensive showing completely erased the value of his highly efficient interior scoring. He was repeatedly bullied in the post and committed multiple shooting fouls that gifted the opponent easy points. The stark negative defensive score highlights his inability to anchor the paint without fouling.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense -2.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 31.5m -16.3
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja Morant 31.0m
8
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.5

A catastrophic shooting performance and poor shot selection cratered his overall impact. He repeatedly forced heavily contested drives into traffic, resulting in empty possessions and transition opportunities going the other way. Even above-average defensive effort couldn't salvage the damage done by his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 31.0m -16.1
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 26.8m
16
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Kept his impact positive through sheer hustle and relentless off-ball movement, despite a rough shooting night from beyond the arc. The volume of missed perimeter shots heavily taxed his overall rating, but he compensated by generating extra possessions. His ability to attack closeouts when the deep ball wasn't falling showcased vital offensive versatility.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 26.8m -13.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jock Landale 25.4m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Capitalized on excellent pick-and-roll synergy, finishing strongly through contact to drive a high positive score. His fundamental box-outs and hard screens created immense value that didn't always show up in his personal stat line. A few defensive lapses in drop coverage slightly limited what was otherwise a dominant interior performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 25.4m -13.1
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Efficient spot-up shooting and disciplined closeouts kept his impact in the green. However, a handful of uncharacteristic ball-handling errors in transition prevented a higher total score. He executed his 3-and-D role perfectly during the third quarter, stretching the floor and containing dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 24.4m -12.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 26.4m
7
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

Settled for low-quality perimeter looks, which severely penalized his impact score as the misses piled up. While he provided solid weak-side rim protection, his inability to stretch the floor effectively cramped the half-court offense. The negative total reflects a player who actively hurt his team's scoring efficiency despite decent defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 29.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 26.4m -13.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.6

Defensive dominance and elite rebounding completely overshadowed a subpar shooting night. He smothered his matchups on the perimeter and generated massive value through deflections and contested shots. His relentless motor during a pivotal third-quarter run dictated the physical tone of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 26.2m -13.6
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Spencer 18.6m
12
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Played a highly disciplined game, maximizing his impact by taking only what the defense gave him. His quick decision-making against defensive rotations kept the ball moving and prevented stagnant possessions. Smart positional defense and timely closeouts further boosted his positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 18.6m -9.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Dragged down by erratic shot selection and an inability to stay in front of his man on the perimeter. The combination of bricked threes and defensive breakdowns compounded into a severely negative impact. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently leaving his teammates in compromised rotational situations.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 17.0m -8.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
John Konchar 12.7m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Delivered a perfectly efficient, low-mistake stint that kept the offensive machinery humming. He didn't force any action, instead capitalizing on broken plays and open spot-up opportunities. His conservative but effective approach yielded a modest but undeniably positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 12.7m -6.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.8m
44
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.3

Offensive dominance drove a massive positive impact, anchored by his ability to dictate the pick-and-roll pace. The heavy volume of missed threes and inevitable high-usage turnovers slightly suppressed his ceiling, though his sheer scoring gravity compensated for the errors. He consistently punished switches, hunting mismatches to generate high-quality looks for himself and others.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 44.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +25.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 38.8m -20.2
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Rui Hachimura 38.1m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

A severe lack of offensive aggression paired with costly defensive fouls plummeted his overall value. He disappeared for long stretches on the perimeter, failing to exploit favorable matchups against smaller wings. The stark negative impact score reflects a player who gave away free points at the stripe while contributing almost nothing to the scoring margin.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 38.1m -19.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Austin Reaves 36.1m
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Poor shot selection and a high volume of missed jumpers severely penalized his overall rating. While he generated decent value through playmaking, forcing contested looks late in the shot clock bled away possessions. His defensive rotations were sharp, but the offensive inefficiency proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 36.1m -18.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 34.8m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Exceptional defensive activity and hustle metrics were entirely undone by a staggering volume of live-ball turnovers. Despite efficient shot-making when he kept the ball, his careless passing in the half-court repeatedly ignited opponent transition breaks. The massive gap between his positive peripheral stats and negative total impact highlights a disastrous floor-general performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +6.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 34.8m -18.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 16.7m
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Kept his impact afloat with efficient finishing around the rim, but his total score was dragged down by a complete inability to secure the glass. His failure to box out the opposing bigs during a crucial second-half stretch allowed second-chance opportunities that negated his offensive efficiency. His screen-setting was solid, yet the lack of interior presence on defense limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -51.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 16.7m -8.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 23.4m
2
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

Strong rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes were completely offset by costly offensive fouls and illegal screens. He struggled to execute dribble hand-offs cleanly, repeatedly turning the ball over and killing offensive momentum. Despite solid defensive metrics, his inability to play a mistake-free game on the other end dragged him into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 23.4m -12.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 23.2m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.5

Elite defensive positioning and relentless hustle plays defined a highly impactful two-way performance. He maximized his minutes by taking only high-percentage shots and blowing up opponent actions on the weak side. The synergy between his off-ball movement and disruptive length resulted in a stellar overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 23.2m -11.9
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Failed to generate enough perimeter gravity to justify his minutes, struggling to separate from physical defenders. A couple of sloppy turnovers and missed rotations in transition defense further eroded his impact. He was largely invisible during a crucial second-quarter stretch, failing to capitalize on the spacing provided by the primary playmakers.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.3m -7.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Provided exactly neutral value during a brief stint, balancing active perimeter defense with offensive invisibility. He effectively neutralized his primary assignment on the wing but clogged the spacing on the other end. The lack of volume in both mistakes and contributions resulted in a perfectly flat impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 13.6m -7.1
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0