GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Ja Morant 35.0m
18
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-10.2

A severe negative impact (-10.2) was driven by highly inefficient isolation attacks and forced attempts at the rim. Despite racking up raw counting stats, his inability to convert in traffic led to run-outs that heavily penalized his overall rating. The offense simply bogged down whenever he tried to play hero ball against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 35.0m -19.0
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

High-volume shot-making carried his positive impact (+2.5), masking a surprisingly subpar defensive showing (-0.7). He successfully stretched the floor and punished mismatches on the perimeter, though he struggled to anchor the paint with his usual authority. The offensive firepower ultimately outweighed the defensive lapses to keep him in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense -0.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 31.1m -16.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jock Landale 29.6m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

A phenomenal two-way effort resulted in a highly impactful performance (+8.6) driven by elite rim protection (+8.5) and relentless activity (+6.1 Hustle). He consistently beat his man to loose balls and altered shots at the basket, dictating the physical tone of the game. This blue-collar dominance stabilized the interior on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +6.1
Defense +8.5
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 29.6m -16.1
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

A disastrous offensive showing cratered his overall impact (-7.0) despite putting up strong defensive resistance (+5.8). Forcing contested jumpers and failing to connect from deep allowed the opposition to completely ignore him on the perimeter. His inability to stretch the floor severely handicapped the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 25.3m -13.7
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 21.3m
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Abysmal shot selection and a barrage of missed perimeter looks dragged his impact firmly into the negative (-4.9). While he tried to compensate with high-energy hustle plays (+5.3), clanking away on high volume consistently killed offensive momentum and sparked transition opportunities for the opponent. The sheer number of empty possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/14 (14.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 21.3m -11.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Tremendous hustle (+7.5) and timely shot-making kept his head above water (+1.1) despite offering zero defensive resistance. He thrived by finding soft spots in the zone and extending possessions with sheer effort. This scrappy offensive execution barely offset his struggles to stay in front of his assignment on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +7.5
Defense -0.0
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 30.6m -16.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Santi Aldama 22.7m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

A negative overall impact (-2.2) stemmed from defensive passivity and an inability to secure critical stops. While he provided decent spacing and activity on offense, he was routinely targeted in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the other end. The failure to contain dribble penetration ultimately negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 22.7m -12.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Dominated the glass in limited minutes, using his physicality to generate second-chance opportunities and a solid positive rating (+3.2). He embraced a low-maintenance role, focusing entirely on setting hard screens and altering shots at the rim (+3.6 Def). This disciplined interior presence perfectly stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 15.2m -8.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

Played to a perfectly neutral impact (0.0) by balancing offensive invisibility with highly disruptive perimeter defense (+4.4). He completely locked down his primary assignment but failed to make the defense pay for leaving him open. It was a classic defensive specialist stint that neither hurt nor helped the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 14.6m -7.9
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Spencer 14.6m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Blistering perimeter efficiency forced the defense to stretch, driving a highly productive short-burst impact (+2.0). He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating flawlessly around the arc, punishing late closeouts. This lethal floor-spacing dynamic instantly opened up driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 14.6m -8.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
DET Detroit Pistons
S Duncan Robinson 39.8m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.2

A brutal overall impact (-14.2) stemmed directly from poor perimeter shot selection and an inability to stretch the defense effectively. Clanking away from deep allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, neutralizing his otherwise passable box metrics. His failure to punish closeouts ultimately collapsed the floor spacing during his massive minute load.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 39.8m -21.6
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 38.9m
33
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.7

Massive offensive production was almost entirely wiped out by defensive lapses and low-energy plays, resulting in a surprisingly marginal overall impact (+1.7). While he orchestrated the offense beautifully, a lack of resistance on the other end allowed opponents to trade baskets effortlessly. His heavy usage kept the offense afloat, but the two-way disparity capped his actual value.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 38.9m -21.1
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 34.4m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

Even with his offensive usage dipping significantly from his recent tear, he remained a strong net positive (+6.9) by pivoting to a defensive anchor role (+10.1). He altered shots around the rim and controlled the glass to ensure his team maintained the advantage. It was a mature showing of finding ways to contribute when the primary game plan isn't clicking.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +10.1
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 34.4m -18.6
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Isaiah Stewart 34.0m
26
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.1

A massive positive impact (+21.1) was fueled by dominant interior presence and high-value shot creation. His ability to anchor the paint defensively (+9.9) while consistently generating high-quality looks inside overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. This two-way physical dominance set the tone for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +39.5
Avg player in 34.0m -18.4
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 26.5m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Elite defensive metrics (+11.3) and relentless energy (+10.6 Hustle) completely drove his positive impact despite a quiet offensive night. He served as a premier disruptor on the perimeter, creating havoc that doesn't show up in traditional scoring columns. His ability to tilt the floor without demanding the ball defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/6 (16.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +10.6
Defense +11.3
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 26.5m -14.5
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Solid defensive metrics (+4.5) couldn't salvage a negative overall rating (-3.4) caused by a complete lack of offensive rhythm. Missed perimeter looks and stagnant off-ball movement allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. His inability to punish defensive rotations ultimately stalled out several key possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 21.4m -11.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Caris LeVert 20.2m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Offensive invisibility dragged his overall rating deeply into the red (-5.4) despite some commendable defensive effort (+4.2). He failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure, settling for empty possessions that stalled the second unit's momentum. The inability to capitalize on his usual scoring spots made him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 20.2m -11.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

An unexpected offensive surge translated into a solid positive impact (+4.0) during his rotation minutes. He attacked the basket with sudden confidence, exploiting defensive gaps that completely caught the opponent off guard. This aggressive downhill mentality provided a crucial spark when the primary scorers rested.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 19.9m -10.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 5.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Made the most of a brief cameo by providing instant defensive resistance (+4.2) and energetic rotations. Even without attempting a shot, his quick closeouts and paint deterrence swung the momentum slightly in his team's favor (+2.5). He perfectly executed the role of a short-burst energy big.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 5.0m -2.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0