GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Ja Morant 32.2m
21
pts
5
reb
13
ast
Impact
+0.9

Generated massive playmaking value by relentlessly collapsing the paint and spraying out to shooters, but gave much of it back with a horrific shooting display from the perimeter. His incredible defensive activity and transition hustle ultimately salvaged a performance that was nearly derailed by forced, acrobatic misses at the rim.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 39.5%
Net Rtg +41.2
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 32.2m -15.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 7
S Jock Landale 29.4m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Set bruising screens and operated effectively as a release valve in the high post, generating solid offensive flow. Despite strong individual defensive metrics, his lack of foot speed in space was repeatedly exploited in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.4m -14.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Scored with ease out of the pick-and-pop, punishing drop coverages with decisive shooting strokes. However, his notorious struggles to anchor the defensive glass and a complete lack of playmaking limited the compounding value of his scoring outbursts.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 28.8m -14.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 25.2m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Stymied by poor shot selection and an inability to create separation, forcing contested mid-range pull-ups that killed offensive momentum. His defensive rotations were consistently a half-step slow, allowing straight-line drives that forced the defense into scramble mode and tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 25.2m -12.3
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

Put on an absolute clinic in two-way role-playing, pairing hyper-efficient perimeter shot-making with elite navigational skills through off-ball screens. His astronomical hustle metrics were fueled by diving for loose balls and breaking up passing lanes, instantly flipping defensive stops into transition daggers.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +50.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +7.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 24.1m -11.7
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Santi Aldama 28.1m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Settled far too often for heavily contested perimeter jumpers, failing to leverage his size to generate high-percentage looks inside. His inability to secure defensive rebounds allowed opponents to feast on second-chance points, severely undercutting the value of his occasional floor-spacing flashes.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 28.1m -13.5
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.1

Delivered a masterclass in offensive efficiency, seamlessly blending powerful straight-line drives with lethal catch-and-shoot daggers. He consistently punished mismatches in the post and crashed the glass with purpose, serving as the undeniable engine of the team's most dominant stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 27.9m -13.5
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 18.6m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications by constantly relocating along the perimeter for high-quality looks. His impact was further amplified by gritty point-of-attack defense, where he successfully navigated screens to hound ball-handlers and blow up dribble hand-off actions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 18.6m -9.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Proved to be an offensive liability, hesitating on open looks and completely disrupting the team's spacing geometry. Without his usual defensive tenacity to fall back on, his minutes were characterized by blown assignments and empty possessions that allowed the opposition to build momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -47.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 15.7m -7.6
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Made his mark entirely without the basketball, utilizing elite anticipation to blow up passing lanes and anchor the perimeter defense. By strictly adhering to his role and executing flawless weak-side rotations, he generated a highly positive impact in a short, scoreless stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 9.4m -4.5
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged mere seconds at the end of a quarter, functioning purely as a situational placeholder. There was no time to register any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 0.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Stepped onto the floor for a fleeting late-game substitution that offered zero opportunity for engagement. His statistical impact remained entirely neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 0.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Managed to swing the metrics wildly in just a handful of seconds by being on the floor for a sudden, high-leverage defensive stop. This micro-stint perfectly illustrates how a single chaotic sequence can mathematically skew an otherwise non-existent sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Burned a few seconds of clock in a purely procedural substitution. The abbreviated stint yielded no actionable data or on-court influence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Max Christie 28.1m
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Sizzled as a spot-up threat, punishing late closeouts with crisp perimeter execution to drive a massive box score rating. However, his overall value was muted by a lack of positional rebounding and defensive lapses when navigating screens against quicker guards.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 28.1m -13.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cooper Flagg 27.3m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Despite solid defensive metrics and decent interior finishing, his overall impact slipped into the red due to sloppy ball security and ill-advised perimeter attempts. The rookie's tendency to force action in half-court sets led to empty possessions that disrupted the offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 27.3m -13.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S P.J. Washington 25.1m
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Kept his head above water primarily through high-motor defensive rotations and active weak-side help. His shot selection was highly questionable as he clanked a barrage of contested looks, but his willingness to do the dirty work in the paint salvaged a marginally positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -43.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 25.1m -12.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

Orchestrated the offense with precision in the mid-range, finding cutters with ease when the defense collapsed. Unfortunately, his impact cratered on the other end of the floor where point-of-attack defensive breakdowns routinely compromised the team's shell.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -82.4
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 16.2m -7.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Daniel Gafford 12.4m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Completely neutralized as a roll man, failing to generate any vertical spacing or rim pressure during his brief stint. While he showed flashes of activity contesting shots, his inability to secure the defensive glass allowed second-chance opportunities that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 12.4m -6.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.2

Overcame a brutal shooting night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass and generating transition opportunities. His physical point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's primary actions, more than making up for the wasted perimeter possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 25.1m -12.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Showed good burst getting into the paint, but his drives often ended in chaotic sequences that fueled opponent fast breaks. Despite solid on-ball defensive metrics, his inability to manage the game's tempo during crucial transitional phases dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 22.1m -10.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Martin 17.5m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Floated through his minutes as an offensive non-factor, failing to apply any rim pressure or space the floor effectively. The lack of aggression allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him, bogging down the half-court spacing and neutralizing his adequate weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.5%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 17.5m -8.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Shot the team completely out of rhythm with a string of forced, contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. While his veteran positioning yielded some positive defensive possessions, the sheer gravity of his offensive black hole doomed any lineup he anchored.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 17.0m -8.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 16.5m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a modest spark by hunting catch-and-shoot opportunities from deep, stretching the defense just enough to open driving lanes. His impact was stabilized by surprisingly disciplined closeouts on the perimeter, avoiding the cheap fouls that usually plague his defensive stints.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 16.5m -8.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Moussa Cisse 14.2m
10
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.0

Completely dominated the interior during his brief shift, altering multiple shots at the rim and vacuuming up contested rebounds. His relentless rim-running and lob-threat gravity warped the opposing defense, engineering massive momentum swings whenever he stepped on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +62.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 14.2m -6.9
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Executed the backup point guard role with clinical efficiency, utilizing quick hesitation moves to probe the paint for high-percentage floaters. He kept the offensive engine humming without forcing the issue, though a lack of physical presence on the defensive end capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 9.6m -4.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Served as a flawless connective piece in limited action, keeping the ball moving and setting bone-crushing screens to free up shooters. By completely avoiding forced offensive actions and securing contested rebounds, he maximized his short rotational window.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 8.9m -4.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0