GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
7
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite locking down his primary assignment (+5.4 Defense), his overall score tanked due to offensive invisibility inside the arc. He failed to make defenses pay for hard closeouts, settling for contested looks rather than attacking the paint. The resulting empty possessions and likely transition costs completely erased his elite perimeter defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 22.5m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Generated massive extra possessions through relentless effort (+7.1 Hustle), but gave the value right back with erratic shot selection. He forced several heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions ultimately dragged his high-energy performance into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -46.4
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ja Morant 21.6m
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.3

Impact cratered due to a disastrous shooting night fueled by forcing wild, off-balance floaters into heavy rim protection. His inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to pack the paint, completely suffocating the team's offensive spacing. A brutal stretch of consecutive missed layups in traffic directly ignited the opponent's fast break, driving his massive negative score.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Anchored the paint with his typical rim deterrence (+3.8 Defense), but his impact was somewhat muted by settling for low-percentage perimeter looks. He was highly effective when establishing deep post position, using his size to draw fouls and collapse the defense. A pattern of rushing early-clock threes prevented his overall rating from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jock Landale 17.7m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

A severe drop in offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor, as he failed to establish any physical presence on the block. His decision to float on the perimeter for missed triples rather than rolling hard to the rim bogged down the half-court offense. This lack of interior gravity allowed the opposing frontcourt to comfortably control the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.0

Put on an absolute clinic in two-way effort, using elite hustle (+7.4) to generate deflections and keep possessions alive. He capitalized on broken plays with decisive drives, punishing a defense that struggled to match his intensity. His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions on the perimeter defined this highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Javon Small 22.0m
9
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.6

Completely derailed the offensive flow by settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than probing the defense. His poor point-of-attack defense allowed opposing guards to easily break the paint and collapse the defensive shell. A disastrous pattern of over-dribbling into traffic directly fueled his catastrophic net impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Santi Aldama 19.7m
13
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.5

Thrived by finding soft spots in the zone, converting highly efficient looks through excellent off-ball movement. His active hands and quick rotations (+4.2 Defense) consistently blew up opponent pick-and-roll actions. A crucial second-half stretch of timely cuts and defensive rebounding completely stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +10.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Faded into the background offensively, failing to leverage his usual scoring gravity by passing up open looks. His reluctance to attack closeouts allowed the defense to rest, stagnating the ball movement on the perimeter. Despite maintaining his shooting efficiency, this extreme passivity resulted in a negative overall footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
GG Jackson 16.2m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A massive drop-off from his usual scoring production was driven by forcing tough, contested looks against set defenses. He failed to read the defensive coverages, repeatedly driving into crowded paints instead of kicking out to open shooters. This severe lack of offensive rhythm completely offset his solid defensive effort (+2.9).

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 14.9m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.7

Shot the team out of multiple possessions with a string of rushed, off-balance attempts from beyond the arc. His inability to connect on open looks completely destroyed the floor spacing, allowing defenders to aggressively trap the ball handlers. A particularly cold shooting stretch in the first half set a negative tone that he never recovered from.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -49.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring -1.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
PJ Hall 14.1m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Displayed excellent touch around the basket, but his overall impact slipped into the red due to a lack of defensive resistance. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently leaving shooters open and forcing teammates into difficult rotation situations. While the offensive efficiency was pristine, his inability to anchor the backline proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Delivered a masterclass in role-player efficiency, making an immediate impact through flawless defensive rotations (+4.7). He didn't waste a single movement on offense, taking only high-value looks to keep the defense honest. His brief stint was defined by high-IQ connective passing and relentless off-ball screening that perfectly greased the offensive wheels.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +60.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 28.4m
24
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.1

A massive shift in shot profile defined this outing, with an uncharacteristic volume of attempts from deep stretching the opposing defense. While the high rate of missed twos dragged down his efficiency, his relentless activity on the glass (+5.3 Hustle) generated crucial second-chance opportunities. This willingness to bomb from the perimeter completely altered the floor spacing, driving a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 24.6m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Defensive metrics popped (+5.5), but his overall impact flatlined due to stalled offensive possessions and likely turnover costs. He struggled to find his typical scoring rhythm against tight perimeter coverage, resulting in a slightly negative net rating. A pattern of forcing contested mid-range jumpers rather than moving the ball short-circuited several promising possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Wiggins 23.7m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Strong defensive positioning (+4.8) kept him viable, but a passive offensive approach limited his ceiling. He settled into a pattern of deferring on the perimeter rather than pressuring the rim, rarely testing the defense from beyond the arc. The negative overall impact stems from empty possessions where he failed to capitalize on defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 22.8m
19
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.3

Dominated the interior matchups by converting high-percentage looks around the basket, doubling his usual scoring output. His towering presence disrupted opponent drives (+5.2 Defense), while elite energy levels (+5.6 Hustle) translated into extra possessions. This breakout performance was anchored by a dominant second-quarter stretch where he completely controlled the paint on both ends.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +10.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 20.6m
2
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.6

Completely vanished as a scoring threat, allowing defenders to sag off him and clog the passing lanes. Despite commendable point-of-attack pressure (+3.8 Hustle), his reluctance to look at the basket cratered the team's offensive spacing. This extreme passivity in the half-court offense directly fueled his steep negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.6

Bounced back emphatically from a recent slump by hunting open catch-and-shoot opportunities from the perimeter. His defensive rotations (+5.5) were exceptionally sharp, frequently cutting off driving lanes and forcing opponents into late-clock bailouts. The combination of lethal outside shooting and disciplined weak-side help fueled a massive surge in his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +49.3
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.7

Elite defensive instincts (+7.5) and highly efficient shot selection inside the arc drove a stellar two-way performance. He consistently punished mismatches in the post, utilizing excellent footwork to generate clean looks without forcing the issue. His ability to string together consecutive stops and immediately transition into high-percentage offense defined his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +66.2
+/- +43
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +9.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Spaced the floor flawlessly by punishing late closeouts, effectively busting out of a recent scoring slump. His active hands and timely closeouts (+4.2 Defense) prevented easy perimeter looks, adding crucial value beyond his shooting. A blistering third-quarter shooting stretch forced the defense to overreact, opening up driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 20.6m
10
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.4

An absolute menace in passing lanes, generating a massive defensive rating (+8.0) that sparked numerous transition opportunities. He shattered his usual scoring baseline by confidently stepping into rhythm triples when defenders went under screens. This sudden burst of two-way aggression completely caught the opposing backcourt off guard and drove a phenomenal net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +71.4
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Maximized a brief rotation stint by playing chaotic, high-energy defense (+3.9) that disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. He didn't hesitate to let it fly from deep, ensuring the offense didn't stagnate while he was on the floor. His aggressive closeouts during a quick second-half shift perfectly encapsulated his positive two-way burst.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -60.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient shot selection, immediately capitalizing on defensive breakdowns during his short time on the court. He maintained excellent spacing discipline, drifting into the corners to provide a reliable release valve for driving teammates. This surgical execution in limited minutes ensured a steady, positive impact without forcing any unnecessary action.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -60.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

Struggled to find the pace of the game, resulting in disjointed offensive sets and a steep negative total in limited action. He was frequently targeted on defensive switches, failing to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack. A pattern of holding the ball too long against pressure ultimately stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -57.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1