GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Anchored the impact metrics through elite rim protection (+7.1), successfully deterring drives and altering shots in the paint. His overall score was suppressed by a completely cold night from beyond the arc, leading to empty offensive possessions. However, his defensive gravity alone was enough to keep the lineup in the positive.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.1
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 30.6m -14.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zach Edey 29.4m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Struggled to leverage his size advantage offensively, missing makeable looks around the rim that dragged his impact into the negative. While his interior defense (+4.3) remained solid, opponents successfully neutralized him by pushing the pace and forcing him to defend in space. The inability to finish cleanly through contact left too many empty trips on the board.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 29.4m -13.9
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 28.5m
23
pts
14
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.9

Completely dominated the game (+13.9) by bullying his way to the rim and generating crucial second-chance opportunities. He smartly abandoned the perimeter after struggling from deep, instead focusing his energy on finishing through contact in the paint. His sheer physicality and rebounding presence dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 28.5m -13.5
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 27.3m
17
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.5

A massive surge in impact (+11.5) was driven by an absolute explosion of hustle (+11.1) and highly efficient shot selection. He aggressively attacked closeouts and punished the defense from the perimeter, breaking out of his recent scoring slump in a major way. His relentless off-ball movement completely fractured the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +11.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 27.3m -13.0
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.7

Impact cratered (-12.7) due to a disastrous combination of forced perimeter shots and defensive breakdowns (-0.6). He short-circuited the offense by settling for contested looks early in the shot clock, completely killing the team's momentum. Opponents actively targeted him on the other end, compounding the damage of his empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 19.2m -9.2
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Cam Spencer 28.9m
17
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.5

Shattered his recent shooting slump by hunting high-quality looks and punishing the defense with crisp decision-making (+6.5). He operated flawlessly as a secondary playmaker, consistently finding the soft spots in the defense to either score or facilitate. His offensive explosion completely tilted the momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 28.9m -13.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Santi Aldama 24.6m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

A barrage of missed perimeter shots tanked his offensive value, leading to a significant negative swing (-6.1). He managed to provide solid hustle (+4.3) and defensive rotations, but it wasn't enough to overcome the momentum-killing empty possessions. The inability to stretch the floor allowed the opposing defense to pack the paint against the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 24.6m -11.7
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.4

Generated positive value (+1.4) entirely through connective passing and mistake-free basketball. He completely deferred offensively, instead focusing his energy on facilitating for others and maintaining structural integrity on defense (+2.3). A perfect example of a veteran executing his role without needing to force up shots.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 19.5m -9.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 16.5m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Maximized his limited minutes by executing perfectly as a rim-runner and screen-setter, driving a solid positive impact (+4.7). He didn't force any offense, instead taking exactly what the defense gave him and finishing efficiently inside. His steady positional defense (+3.7) helped stabilize the second unit during a crucial rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 16.5m -7.9
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
John Konchar 15.6m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Drove a positive impact (+3.8) strictly through high-IQ hustle plays (+4.5) and connective passing. He didn't need scoring volume to influence the game, instead focusing on keeping possessions alive with timely deflections. His ability to execute the dirty work on the margins provided a massive boost to the bench unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 15.6m -7.4
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 35.8m
18
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.0

Impact cratered (-10.0) due to severe defensive lapses (-1.2) and an inability to contain his man on the perimeter. While he orchestrated the offense and hit timely outside shots, opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions to bleed points the other way. The scoring volume was completely undone by his lack of resistance at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.2
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 35.8m -17.0
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ivica Zubac 34.8m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

A lack of offensive involvement caused his impact to slip into the negative, completely neutralizing his usual scoring efficiency. He still provided value in the margins with solid screen-setting and interior hustle (+4.3), but the guards failed to reward his rim runs. The inability to establish a post presence allowed the opposing frontcourt to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 34.8m -16.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kawhi Leonard 34.7m
24
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.4

Impact stayed afloat due to strong defensive anchoring (+5.7) despite a rough night forcing contested perimeter jumpers. The sheer volume of his missed outside looks dragged down his offensive efficiency, but his gravity still created spacing for others. He salvaged his overall rating by consistently disrupting passing lanes and staying locked in on his wing assignment.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 34.7m -16.5
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S John Collins 24.7m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Settling for contested perimeter looks capped his overall ceiling, as the missed threes offset his aggressive scoring surge. He managed to stay in the positive by leaning into his hustle metrics (+3.6) and executing timely defensive rotations. The aggressive offensive mindset was there, but poor shot selection from deep limited his true effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 24.7m -11.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Dunn 20.7m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Total offensive passivity tanked his value, as he failed to pressure the rim or generate any scoring threat during his stint. He managed to keep his impact near neutral strictly through elite point-of-attack defense (+6.2) and relentless hustle (+4.2). Forcing the unit to play 4-on-5 offensively severely capped the lineup's ceiling.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 20.7m -9.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.3

A brutal shooting night from the perimeter completely erased his value, leading to a massive negative swing (-10.3) during his minutes. Because he couldn't punish closeouts or stretch the floor, the defense simply sagged off him to clog the paint. Without his usual connective passing to fall back on, his missed jumpers became empty, momentum-killing possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 30.9m -14.6
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 27.3m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

High-level defensive execution (+6.3) and relentless energy (+6.4) drove a positive stint off the bench. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead capitalizing on broken plays and taking high-quality looks within the flow of the system. His perimeter pressure completely disrupted the opponent's secondary unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 27.3m -13.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Brown 21.2m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite defensive positioning (+8.1) and non-stop motor (+5.9) fueled a massive positive swing (+11.6) despite a mediocre shooting night. He completely shut down his side of the floor, turning deflections into transition opportunities for the second unit. This performance cemented a clear pattern of him driving winning basketball entirely through effort and IQ.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +5.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 21.2m -10.0
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Floated through a brief stint without leaving a footprint on the game, resulting in a slightly negative impact. He settled for perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint, failing to put any pressure on the rim. A lack of defensive playmaking meant he was essentially a passenger during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 9.9m -4.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0