GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Ja Morant 33.7m
17
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.3

Forcing the issue against a set defense resulted in a barrage of low-quality, contested attempts that cratered his offensive efficiency. Although he generated immense pressure with his downhill speed and hustle, the sheer volume of missed outside shots bailed out the defense. This erratic shot selection ultimately stalled out the primary scoring engine.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 33.7m -19.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Elite rim protection and weak-side help salvaged a night where his offensive touch completely abandoned him. He deterred countless drives and altered the geometry of the paint, compensating for a lack of scoring punch. The sheer defensive gravity kept his overall impact slightly above water despite the quiet offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.0
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 29.3m -16.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.5

An absolute black hole offensively, his inability to connect on open looks completely collapsed the floor spacing. While he chased shooters admirably around screens to provide some defensive value, the constant bricked jumpers acted as live-ball turnovers that ignited the opposing fast break. The offensive futility was simply too steep to overcome with hustle alone.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -33.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -5.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 23.9m -13.8
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jock Landale 20.5m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Stretching the floor with surprising accuracy from deep pulled the opposing rim protectors out of the paint. He executed dribble hand-offs flawlessly and set bruising screens that freed up the guards. This reliable pick-and-pop execution provided a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 20.5m -11.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 19.6m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Perfect shooting from the field was undermined by defensive passivity and an inability to impact the game without the ball. He frequently got caught ball-watching on the weak side, surrendering key positioning for offensive rebounds. The lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption left his net rating in the negative despite the clean offensive sheet.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 19.6m -11.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

A massive regression in scoring efficiency severely handicapped the offense, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter. He tried to compensate by crashing the glass relentlessly and blowing up pick-and-rolls, but the lack of floor spacing was toxic. The defensive grit simply couldn't outpace the damage done by the bricked wide-open threes.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 28.7m -16.6
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 26.3m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Active weak-side rotations and timely closeouts anchored a highly productive shift as a versatile frontcourt piece. Even with a streaky outside stroke, he attacked closeouts decisively to keep the offense flowing. His ability to toggle between defending the perimeter and protecting the glass drove a strong positive margin.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 26.3m -15.2
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Spencer 19.5m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.7

A scorching hot hand from beyond the arc completely shattered the opponent's zone defense. He hunted his shot aggressively coming off pin-down screens, punishing defenders for going under. This massive, unexpected scoring surge off the bench single-handedly flipped the momentum of the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 19.5m -11.2
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Failed to establish deep post position, resulting in rushed, off-balance looks around the rim that snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficiency. He was consistently a step slow on defensive rotations, allowing guards to turn the corner too easily. The inability to anchor the drop coverage effectively bled points during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.3m -9.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by burying timely catch-and-shoot looks from the wing. He stayed within the flow of the offense, never forcing bad shots or disrupting the spacing. A fundamentally sound, mistake-free stint provided a modest but stable boost to the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 15.2m -8.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Managed to squeeze in a quick driving layup during a brief end-of-game appearance. He stayed active on the perimeter but didn't have the runway to showcase his usual scoring punch. A completely neutral shift that merely ran out the clock.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 2.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Generated immediate value in garbage time by drawing contact inside and converting at the stripe. He walled off the paint effectively on the single defensive possession he faced. Maximized his tiny window of opportunity with physical, decisive play.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Saw his streak of high-level scoring abruptly halted by a purely ceremonial appearance at the final buzzer. He simply occupied space on the floor without logging a single offensive touch. The negative impact score is merely statistical noise from a meaningless final possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 2.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Forced a bad perimeter shot early in the shot clock during his brief mop-up minutes. He failed to get back in transition, allowing a quick score the other way. A disjointed and rushed cameo that dragged down his usually stellar offensive profile.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 38.8m
28
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.7

Relentless downhill attacking broke the opposing defense, generating a massive offensive surge that easily outweighed the high volume of attempts. He consistently beat primary defenders off the dribble to create high-value looks at the rim. Paired with disruptive on-ball defense, this aggressive two-way showing dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 38.8m -22.5
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

Highly efficient spot-up execution was entirely negated by bleeding points on the other end of the floor. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and failed to close out under control, leading to a disastrous overall defensive rating. The scoring punch looked nice in isolation but masked a porous showing against quicker forwards.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.3
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 35.5m -20.5
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 34.7m
20
pts
16
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.0

Despite snapping his highly efficient shooting streak, his massive defensive presence and relentless activity on the glass anchored the interior. He compensated for the missed hook shots by generating extra possessions through elite positioning and hustle. Dominating the physical battle in the paint proved far more valuable than his raw scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +12.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 34.7m -20.2
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Kevin Durant 34.5m
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.1

A severe shooting slump completely derailed his offensive gravity and stalled out half-court sets. While his length provided solid weak-side rim protection, the sheer volume of clanked jumpers acted as live-ball turnovers that allowed Memphis to leak out in transition. His inability to find rhythm against physical perimeter coverage ultimately dragged the starting unit into a deep hole.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 34.5m -19.8
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 23.5m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

An unexpected perimeter eruption forced defenders to respect his shot, completely altering Houston's spacing dynamics. He capitalized on sagging coverage by knocking down timely corner triples, while maintaining his usual point-of-attack defensive intensity. This sudden offensive reliability turned him into a devastating two-way catalyst off the bench.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 23.5m -13.7
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Tari Eason 31.7m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

A heavy reliance on the outside shot yielded mixed overall results, as the missed attempts frequently led to long rebounds and opponent run-outs. Even with solid defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes, the empty offensive possessions dragged his net impact slightly into the red. Settling for contested jumpers rather than pressuring the rim limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 31.7m -18.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Exceptional shot selection and disruptive perimeter defense created a highly positive two-way swing in limited minutes. He consistently made the extra pass and capitalized on defensive breakdowns without forcing the issue. Active hands on the perimeter sparked multiple transition opportunities that inflated his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 16.8m -9.8
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 16.0m
6
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

Flawless execution in the pick-and-roll and elite offensive rebounding maximized his short stint on the floor. He sealed off the paint effectively, converting his limited touches into high-leverage points while deterring drives on the other end. This hyper-efficient, mistake-free interior shift provided a massive stabilizing boost to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 16.0m -9.4
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

A brief garbage-time cameo featured a quick bucket in the paint but lacked enough runway to influence the broader game flow. He stayed engaged defensively during his short stint, ensuring no easy baskets were surrendered. The minimal court time kept his overall footprint negligible.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to organize the offense during a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. A lack of scoring threat allowed the defense to cheat off him, stalling out half-court sets. Minor defensive miscommunications further dragged down his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 2.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Fired a blank from the perimeter during a very short mop-up duty shift. He provided token resistance inside but failed to leave any meaningful imprint on the game's outcome. The performance was essentially a placeholder to eat the final minutes of the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 2.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

A forced, contested jumper and poor transition defense defined a rough two-minute stretch. He looked out of sync with the reserve unit, failing to generate any positive momentum. The combination of an empty possession and defensive lapses resulted in a quick negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0