GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jaylen Wells 25.7m
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.5

Wells capitalized brilliantly on defensive miscommunications, finding soft spots in the zone for easy looks. His relentless off-ball movement exhausted his primary defender and warped the opposing scheme. Active hands in the passing lanes generated crucial deflections that sparked transition runs.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 25.7m -12.4
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 24.6m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Coward bogged down the offense with sticky hands, holding the ball too long against set defenses. His missed perimeter shots often led to long rebounds and easy run-outs for the opposition. He also failed to contain dribble penetration, constantly requiring help that compromised the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 24.6m -11.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

Jackson completely altered the geometry of the court defensively, deterring countless drives with his elite rim protection. Even on a night where his touch around the basket abandoned him, his sheer presence forced opponents into low-percentage floaters. This was a masterclass in impacting winning without scoring efficiently.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +7.5
Defense +11.1
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 23.8m -11.6
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Zach Edey 21.9m
12
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

The massive center struggled to navigate drop coverage, frequently getting caught in no-man's land against quicker guards. While he established deep post position effectively, defenders stripped him multiple times on his gather. An inability to defend in space ultimately negated his interior scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 21.9m -10.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

A disastrous stint defined by late defensive rotations and poor closeout angles. He was repeatedly blown by on the perimeter, forcing the bigs into foul trouble. Offensively, he settled for contested jumpers early in the clock, short-circuiting any rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 16.2m -7.9
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Cam Spencer 31.8m
12
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.1

Spencer provided excellent connective passing, keeping the ball moving side-to-side to exploit shifting defenses. However, his hesitance to shoot when run off the three-point line resulted in empty trips. Strong positional defense kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +48.4
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 31.8m -15.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
Santi Aldama 28.1m
22
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.1

Aldama dominated his minutes by punishing switches and shooting over smaller defenders with ease. His spatial awareness on defense was impeccable, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs before they materialized. It was a highly efficient two-way clinic that anchored the team's best stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +54.0
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +9.8
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 28.1m -13.7
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.5

Caldwell-Pope executed his 3-and-D role to perfection, locking down his assignment while punishing help defense. His ability to navigate screens flawlessly blew up the opponent's primary offensive sets. Timely corner triples broke the back of the defense during a crucial second-half run.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +59.3
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 23.4m -11.4
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 21.0m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Landale set bone-crushing screens that consistently freed up the guards for downhill attacks. His decisive rolls to the rim collapsed the defense, creating wide-open looks on the perimeter. He held his own defensively by walling up vertically against drivers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 21.0m -10.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
John Konchar 17.3m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Konchar made his mark entirely in the margins, securing crucial 50/50 balls that extended possessions. His elite rebounding from the guard position prevented second-chance opportunities for the opponent. It was a quintessential glue-guy performance where defensive positioning outweighed offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.4
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 17.3m -8.4
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Mashack rushed through his limited minutes, looking out of sync with the offensive flow. A poorly timed gamble on defense led to an open driving lane. He barely had time to break a sweat before being subbed back out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.0m -1.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Prosper managed to stay positive in the plus-minus column despite failing to convert his looks around the rim. He drew a pair of key shooting fouls by aggressively attacking closeouts in transition. His length bothered shooters just enough during a brief cameo appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 3.0m -1.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 32.7m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Relentless energy on the margins defined this outing, as evidenced by a massive hustle rating. He kept multiple possessions alive with timely offensive rebounds and loose ball recoveries. His point-of-attack defense completely stalled the opponent's pick-and-roll rhythm during the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +9.9
Defense +8.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 32.7m -15.8
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jerami Grant 32.1m
21
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Despite a brutal shooting night from the perimeter, his impact stayed afloat through sheer defensive versatility. He consistently disrupted the opponent's primary actions, generating deflections that fueled transition opportunities. Drawing key fouls on drives helped salvage an otherwise inefficient offensive outing.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 32.1m -15.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Deni Avdija 30.7m
17
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.2

He operated effectively as a secondary playmaker, reading the defense perfectly on baseline cuts. His defensive rotations were sharp, frequently closing out under control to contest perimeter shooters. However, a couple of ill-advised live-ball turnovers in traffic kept his overall impact muted.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 30.7m -14.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Sidy Cissoko 23.7m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Poor spatial awareness on offense clogged driving lanes for his teammates. He repeatedly forced heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks that cratered his net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 23.7m -11.6
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Hansen Yang 19.2m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

The rookie struggled to anchor the paint defensively, often finding himself out of position on rotations. A lack of rim deterrence allowed easy layups, dragging down his overall effectiveness. While he showed flashes of high-post passing, it wasn't enough to overcome the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.2m -9.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

A puzzling lack of aggression off the bounce neutralized his athletic advantages. He settled too often for passive perimeter swings instead of attacking closeouts, stalling the offense. Defensive lapses off the ball, including losing his man on back-cuts, further eroded his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -51.7
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 26.7m -13.0
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
Kris Murray 21.9m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Murray blended into the background offensively, rarely demanding the ball or attacking gaps. His value came entirely from disciplined weak-side defensive rotations and timely closeouts. It was a completely neutral performance where he neither hurt the team nor moved the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 1.9%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 21.9m -10.6
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Caleb Love 20.1m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

Shot selection was highly questionable, featuring multiple contested pull-ups that bailed out the defense. His inability to create separation against physical coverage led to stagnant, late-clock possessions. A failure to fight through off-ball screens compounded the damage on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -41.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 20.1m -9.7
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Duop Reath 19.1m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Spacing the floor as a trail big opened up the paint significantly for the guards. His quick release on pick-and-pop actions punished drop coverages repeatedly. Defensive limitations in space prevented a higher overall score, but the offensive efficiency was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 19.1m -9.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 10.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

The young wing looked overwhelmed by the game's physicality, getting easily bumped off his driving lines. His hesitation to shoot open catch-and-shoot looks allowed defenders to sag and pack the paint. Opponents targeted him repeatedly in isolation during a rough second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 10.6m -5.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Cooke barely registered a pulse during a brief garbage-time stint. He rushed his only shot attempt against a set defense. The short run failed to make any noticeable impact on the hustle or defensive margins.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.2m -1.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0