GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Santi Aldama 27.6m
29
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.6

Absolutely torched defensive rotations as a trail big, punishing late closeouts with lethal perimeter execution. Combined with stellar weak-side rim protection, this was a masterclass in modern stretch-four impact.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +42.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 27.6m -15.5
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Zach Edey 24.8m
16
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.1

Flawless interior finishing and immovable post positioning overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. He anchored the paint with imposing verticality, deterring drives and converting every single touch into high-value offense.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 24.8m -14.0
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 24.8m
19
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Exceptional off-ball activity and timely cuts fueled a highly productive offensive shift. His relentless energy on loose balls created extra possessions, easily masking a few minor defensive miscommunications.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 24.8m -14.1
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
15
ast
Impact
-3.0

Elite defensive instincts and brilliant halfcourt orchestration were dragged down by a complete inability to stretch the floor. Defenders sagged off him entirely due to errant perimeter shooting, which ultimately clogged the paint and hurt the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.8m -13.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 18.8m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

An uptick in scoring aggression yielded mixed results, as defensive lapses negated his offensive contributions. He found success attacking closeouts, but poor weak-side awareness allowed opponents to exploit his positioning.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 18.8m -10.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 24.2m
7
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.8

A brutal shooting slump from the perimeter sabotaged his offensive value, repeatedly letting the defense off the hook. He salvaged some dignity with gritty perimeter containment, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions sank his net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 28.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 24.2m -13.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 20.2m
3
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Sacrificed his own scoring completely to serve as the ultimate glue guy, generating immense value through relentless rebounding and loose-ball recoveries. His elite positional awareness on defense completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm, proving that impact doesn't require high usage.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 20.2m -11.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.5

Clanking multiple open looks from the corners severely hindered the offense's spacing. While his point-of-attack defense remained stingy, the inability to punish defensive rotations proved too costly to his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +57.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 18.3m -10.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 18.2m
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Forced too many contested jumpers early in the clock, resulting in a jarring drop in offensive efficiency. Fortunately, his high-motor closeouts and disruptive length on the defensive end prevented his impact score from completely cratering.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 18.2m -10.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Supreme shot discipline and flawless execution kept his recent efficiency streak alive. He paired this opportunistic scoring with suffocating defensive versatility, locking down multiple positions to drive a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 97.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 18.0m -10.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 14.8m
21
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+20.7

Completely dismantled the opposing second unit with devastating pick-and-roll rim runs. His overwhelming physicality in the restricted area generated an astronomical per-minute impact, turning a brief rotational stint into a game-breaking stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact +20.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Maximized a brief rotational cameo by confidently stepping into perimeter catch-and-shoot opportunities. His willingness to let it fly from deep provided a quick offensive jolt without bleeding value on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 6.4m -3.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 26.1m
26
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Elite shot creation drove a highly positive offensive rating, punishing drop coverages with decisive perimeter pull-ups. His willingness to compete on the defensive end provided a crucial secondary boost to his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 36.2%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 26.1m -14.7
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Drew Eubanks 25.6m
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Solid interior finishing was entirely overshadowed by defensive breakdowns during opponent runs. He struggled to anchor the paint against quicker matchups, bleeding value despite hitting his looks around the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 25.6m -14.4
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan after a dominant four-game stretch of high-percentage finishing. His defensive rotations remained solid, but the severe lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to completely ignore him in the halfcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -50.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 24.1m -13.5
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.0

Errant perimeter shot selection severely capped his offensive value, frequently bailing out the defense early in the shot clock. Even with a slight uptick in scoring aggression, those wasted possessions derailed the team's momentum and tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -56.8
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 20.5m -11.6
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 15.4m
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

A stark drop in offensive aggression neutralized his typical value, as he deferred heavily rather than hunting his usual midrange spots. While his limited shot attempts were highly efficient, a lack of defensive resistance dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -61.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.7
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 15.4m -8.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

High-motor closeouts and relentless off-ball movement couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc. Clanking multiple wide-open spot-up looks cramped the floor for his teammates, resulting in a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 32.8m -18.6
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-18.8

Disastrous offensive execution cratered his impact score, as he repeatedly forced contested drives into heavy traffic. Coming up completely empty from the floor stalled multiple transition opportunities and crippled the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense -6.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total -4.5
Avg player in 25.1m -14.3
Impact -18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Continued a streak of surgical interior finishing by capitalizing on every pick-and-roll dive opportunity. His reliable hands and decisive rim attacks generated steady offensive momentum whenever he touched the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 20.9m -11.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined this stint, completely disrupting the opponent's primary actions. While his offensive volume dipped, perfect perimeter execution on limited touches kept his overall impact above water.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 19.3m -11.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 16.2m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Relentless screen navigation and active hands on the perimeter drove a highly positive defensive rating. He sacrificed his own offensive volume to focus purely on shutting down driving lanes, making him a crucial stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 16.2m -9.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Malik Monk 14.1m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

A total lack of downhill aggression neutralized his typical role as a bench sparkplug. Failing to collapse the defense or create separation off the bounce led to stagnant possessions and a steep drop in his net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -43.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 14.1m -8.0
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1