GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jaylen Wells 33.4m
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.1

An absolute revelation on the wing, combining elite shot-making with a relentless motor that generated a massive +7.8 hustle score. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter set the tone defensively, driving a career-best overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +7.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 33.4m -19.2
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.2

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers completely derailed his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to pack the paint. While his rim protection remained passable, the steady diet of clanked threes fueled long rebounds and opponent fast breaks, dragging his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 28.6m -16.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cedric Coward 26.7m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

A drastic reduction in offensive assertiveness crippled his overall value, as he repeatedly passed up open looks to stall the offense. Despite a respectable +4.0 defensive rating fueled by sharp weak-side rotations, his inability to threaten the rim made him a severe negative overall.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 26.7m -15.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.6

Tenacious on-ball pressure yielded a strong +4.8 defensive metric, but it wasn't enough to cover for his erratic finishing. Missing multiple bunnies around the rim killed offensive momentum and ultimately left him with a negative net impact for the night.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 23.9m -13.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Zach Edey 5.7m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Provided a brief but sturdy interior presence during a quick first-half rotation. His massive screening gravity opened up driving lanes for the guards, yielding a slightly positive net rating before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 5.7m -3.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Santi Aldama 32.7m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.9

A frigid shooting night from beyond the arc threatened to tank his value, but he salvaged his shift through sheer defensive willpower. Exceptional rim contests and active hands in the passing lanes generated a +7.5 defensive score, barely keeping his total impact above water.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.5%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 32.7m -18.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Jock Landale 30.9m
26
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Dominating the interior with physical drop-step moves allowed him to shatter his season scoring averages. His +5.1 defensive rating was equally vital, as he repeatedly walled off the restricted area to force low-percentage floaters.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 30.9m -17.8
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 28.9m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Decisive off-ball cutting and quick-trigger shooting punished defensive lapses and sparked a major scoring surge above his usual baseline. He consistently made the right extra pass against closing defenders, ensuring a steady offensive flow and a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 28.9m -16.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Getting constantly caught ball-watching led to back-breaking backdoor cuts that decimated his defensive rating. His flawless shooting splits were entirely overshadowed by a lack of rotational discipline, resulting in a brutal -9.2 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 21.3m -12.3
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Though he failed to register a single point, relentless crashing of the offensive glass generated extra possessions during a brief stint. His active hands in the passing lanes provided just enough defensive disruption to squeak out a marginally positive net score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 7.9m -4.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 37.2m
29
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.7

Lethal shot-making from beyond the arc drove a massive box score rating, but defensive apathy kept his overall impact surprisingly modest. A tendency to die on screens at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to generate easy momentum, limiting the value of his offensive fireworks.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 37.2m -21.4
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 36.5m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Efficient spot-up shooting was completely negated by poor transition defensive discipline and costly live-ball turnovers. Despite spacing the floor beautifully in the half-court, his inability to contain dribble penetration on the other end dragged his overall net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 36.5m -21.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 33.7m
17
pts
10
reb
16
ast
Impact
+10.1

Masterful manipulation of defensive double-teams fueled an elite playmaking clinic, completely offsetting a quiet night as a primary scorer. His +7.8 defensive impact was quietly the story of the game, anchored by brilliant positional awareness to blow up pick-and-roll actions before they materialized.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +7.8
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 33.7m -19.4
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Peyton Watson 32.9m
27
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.9

An aggressive downhill attacking mentality shattered his usual scoring averages and forced the defense into constant rotation. His stellar +7.5 hustle rating reflected a series of crucial second-chance tip-outs that demoralized the opponent's frontcourt and fueled a dominant overall plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.4%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 32.9m -18.9
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 15.0m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Relentless off-ball motion and diving for loose balls generated a massive +5.3 hustle rating to salvage an otherwise empty offensive shift. His total impact still dipped into the red due to a complete lack of perimeter gravity, allowing defenders to freely sag into the paint and clog driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 15.0m -8.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 28.3m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.0

A sudden regression in finishing at the rim snapped a highly efficient streak and severely tanked his offensive value. His catastrophic -11.0 overall rating was heavily influenced by getting repeatedly targeted in isolation during a brutal third-quarter defensive collapse.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 28.3m -16.3
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Errant shot selection from the perimeter stalled out multiple offensive possessions and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. While he managed a few timely defensive rotations to bump up his metrics on that end, the forced jumpers ultimately resulted in a net negative shift.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 27.4m -15.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 14.6m
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Knocking down a pair of trail threes provided a brief offensive spark, but his overall impact cratered due to poor rebounding positioning. He was consistently bullied off his spots in the paint, giving up crucial second-chance opportunities that erased his perimeter contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 14.6m -8.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Physical screen-setting and reliable interior positioning stabilized the second unit's half-court execution. He anchored the paint effectively during his short stint, using his wide frame to wall off the restricted area and secure a modest positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 14.3m -8.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1