GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Ja Morant 33.6m
11
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-15.8

An abysmal shooting performance featuring a staggering volume of missed shots absolutely torpedoed his impact score to a team-worst rating. Continually forcing wild, contested attempts at the rim played directly into the defense's hands and completely derailed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/18 (16.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 33.6m -16.8
Impact -15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Inefficient volume shooting inside the arc dragged his net impact into the red despite standard rim protection numbers. Forcing contested looks in the paint wasted valuable possessions and inadvertently fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 28.6m -14.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jock Landale 27.6m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-motor hustle plays and opportunistic perimeter shooting drove a solid positive rating off the bench. Stretching the floor as a trailer created vital driving lanes that kept the second-unit offense flowing smoothly.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 27.6m -13.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Modest defensive contributions weren't enough to overcome a negative overall swing during his transition shifts. Struggling to connect from deep cramped the floor and allowed his primary matchup to frequently cheat into the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 23.1m -11.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 22.9m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Defensive liabilities and poor rotational awareness severely undercut a highly efficient scoring night. He essentially gave back everything he generated on offense by repeatedly losing his man on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 22.9m -11.5
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Santi Aldama 29.6m
12
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Fantastic defensive metrics were surprisingly offset by negative lineup swings during his minutes on the floor. While he protected the weak side admirably, poor spacing from his missed perimeter shots bogged down the half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 29.6m -14.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
13
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite rebounding and relentless hustle generated crucial extra possessions, driving a strong positive impact despite poor interior finishing. His constant activity on the glass wore down the opposing frontcourt and effectively masked his struggles inside the arc.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 28.9m -14.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 20.1m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Clanking open perimeter looks prevented him from capitalizing on the gravity of his teammates, resulting in a negative net impact. Failing to punish late closeouts allowed the opposing defense to comfortably pack the driving lanes without consequence.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 20.1m -10.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Solid point-of-attack defense couldn't save his rating during a stint where the team's offense completely stagnated. A distinct reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 14.4m -7.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Maximizing a brief rotation spot came down to making quick decisions and playing mistake-free defense. This stabilizing presence helped the second unit maintain its footing during a particularly chaotic stretch of the game.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 8.9m -4.5
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
GG Jackson 1.0m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely seeing the floor in a purely garbage-time cameo yielded entirely negligible metrics. Drawing a quick foul got him on the board, but he otherwise had zero opportunity to influence the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.0m -0.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Logging less than a minute of action resulted in a slightly negative score due to a brief, unfavorable lineup swing. He was entirely a spectator during his fleeting seconds on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.0m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 0.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Inserted solely for the final seconds of the game, he generated absolutely no statistical footprint. The negative fractional score merely reflects the opponent securing a bucket during his microscopic stint.

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 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.4m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
35
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+22.6

Total offensive domination paired with elite defensive disruption fueled a monstrous overall rating. Consistently breaking down primary defenders in isolation created a cascading effect that the opposition simply could not contain.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +27.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +40.3
Avg player in 35.3m -17.7
Impact +22.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 34.2m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Elite perimeter pressure and relentless hustle kept his overall impact near neutral despite a brutal shooting night. Clanking a barrage of perimeter looks completely negated the value he generated on the defensive end by stalling out half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +7.8
Defense +7.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 34.2m -17.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ajay Mitchell 31.9m
21
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.8

A phenomenal two-way performance was defined by stellar defensive metrics and sharp, decisive shot selection. Punishing defensive rotations with timely perimeter makes resulted in a massive overall impact that swung the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.2
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 31.9m -16.0
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Capitalizing on interior spacing allowed him to convert at a highly efficient clip, driving a robust box score metric. His ability to anchor the paint and finish drop-off passes created reliable offense whenever the perimeter game stalled out.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 30.3m -15.2
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 30.1m
21
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Highly efficient interior scoring drove a massive box score impact as he consistently exploited his frontcourt matchups. Active hustle plays further amplified his value, keeping possessions alive and masking a quiet night from three-point range.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +5.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 30.1m -15.1
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 21.4m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Constant off-ball movement and relentless hustle salvaged a positive impact on a night where his jumper lacked its usual rhythm. Drawing defensive attention on the perimeter still opened up driving lanes for teammates, effectively offsetting his inefficient shooting volume.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +7.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 21.4m -10.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Alex Caruso 21.0m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Brick-laying from the perimeter severely tanked his overall value despite characteristic defensive solidity. Missing a slew of wide-open corner looks killed offensive momentum and allowed the opposing defense to aggressively sag off him into the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 21.0m -10.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.1

A disastrous shooting performance completely cratered his overall impact score. Forcing multiple empty looks from beyond the arc resulted in dead-end possessions that his marginal hustle stats simply could not cover up.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 16.8m -8.4
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Flashes of defensive switchability were overshadowed by complete invisibility on the offensive end during his brief run. A distinct lack of aggression in attacking closeouts kept him from making any tangible positive mark on the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -71.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 7.2m -3.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Scraping together a barely positive rating came down to fundamental defensive positioning in limited action. He kept the ball moving and avoided costly mistakes, serving as a perfectly functional placeholder in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +54.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 7.0m -3.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Brief rotation minutes yielded a negative impact primarily due to minor defensive lapses and a lack of overall engagement. He failed to register any meaningful offensive involvement during his short stint on the floor, floating on the perimeter without drawing gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -124.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0