GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Cam Spencer 37.1m
19
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-3.6

Operating as the primary offensive engine yielded massive volume but spotty efficiency, ultimately dragging his net impact down to -3.6. While his playmaking vision was superb, forcing too many contested perimeter looks routinely stalled out the half-court flow. He provided adequate point-of-attack defense (+3.2), but the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions took a toll.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 37.1m -21.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 32.0m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.2

A catastrophic shooting night completely tanked his overall value, generating a staggering -17.2 net impact. Throwing up bricks from beyond the arc short-circuited multiple offensive sets and allowed opponents to ignite transition breaks. To his credit, he never stopped working on the margins (+4.3 hustle), but the offensive crater was simply too deep to climb out of.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 32.0m -18.3
Impact -17.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Elite defensive deterrence (+5.5) and active rim protection were entirely undone by highly inefficient interior finishing. He struggled mightily to convert through contact, forcing up heavily contested looks in the paint that dragged his overall impact into the red (-1.5). The defensive presence was undeniable, but the offensive execution left too much value on the table.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 32.0m -18.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cedric Coward 31.0m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Solid spot-up execution and disciplined defensive rotations (+4.0) masked some underlying structural issues in his floor game. Despite a clean shooting profile, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-1.6), likely due to defensive breakdowns away from the ball or ill-timed live-ball mistakes. He operated well as a finisher but struggled when asked to process the game at game speed.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 31.0m -17.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

Maximized every single second of a microscopic rotation stint to post an absurd +6.9 impact rating in under four minutes. Relentless energy on the glass and hyper-active defensive switching (+4.3) completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. It was a masterclass in short-burst, high-motor productivity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Santi Aldama 35.7m
37
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.7

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency and two-way dominance drove a stratospheric +24.7 net impact. He torched defensive coverages from every spot on the floor, pairing his elite shot-making with suffocating rim deterrence (+5.6 defense). His relentless motor (+5.0 hustle) ensured he controlled the flow of the game from the opening tip to the final horn.

Shooting
FG 15/23 (65.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +34.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +45.2
Avg player in 35.7m -20.5
Impact +24.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

A remarkably passive outing saw him float through his minutes with minimal two-way engagement, plummeting his impact to -7.2. He failed to leave his usual footprint as a perimeter stopper (+0.9 defense) and was entirely absent in the hustle categories. Without his customary disruption in the passing lanes, he was essentially running wind sprints.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 28.0m -16.0
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 23.8m
5
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

An inability to finish anything around the basket doomed his performance, resulting in a brutal -7.0 overall impact. Missing a barrage of clean looks in the paint killed offensive momentum and fueled opponent run-outs. He offered very little resistance or physical presence on the interior to make up for the offensive futility.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 23.8m -13.7
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.7

Flawless shot selection and perfect execution from the field anchored a highly efficient, albeit brief, rotation stint (+2.7 impact). He didn't force a single action, taking exactly what the defense gave him to keep the offensive chains moving. While his defensive footprint was relatively light, his mistake-free basketball was exactly what the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.3%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 16.5m -9.4
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 39.4m
28
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.4

Blistering perimeter execution accounted for nearly all of his positive value, as he punished drop coverage repeatedly from deep. The massive box-score production was heavily diluted in the final impact metric (+4.4) due to a lack of secondary defensive or hustle contributions. Still, his floor-spacing gravity was the defining feature of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 39.4m -22.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 39.2m
28
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite two-way engagement fueled a massive +11.6 overall impact, anchored by relentless activity on the margins (+6.5 hustle). His highly efficient shot profile from all three levels kept the offense humming perfectly in rhythm. The combination of high-level playmaking and disruptive defensive rotations defined his stellar outing.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +34.1
Avg player in 39.2m -22.5
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Bub Carrington 34.9m
14
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.9

Errant perimeter marksmanship and empty offensive possessions dragged his overall impact deep into the red (-9.9). While he competed adequately on the defensive end (+3.8), his inability to convert from deep allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock ultimately derailed the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 34.9m -20.0
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alex Sarr 26.0m
18
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Breaking out of a severe recent shooting funk, his offensive assertiveness yielded a massive +12.1 overall rating. Quality shot selection at the rim and beyond the arc completely flipped his usual efficiency metrics. He paired that scoring surge with imposing interior defense (+4.7) to dominate his frontcourt matchups.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 26.0m -14.9
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Khris Middleton 22.1m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.6

A prolonged shooting slump continues to severely depress his offensive value, as clanking nearly every jumper stalled out multiple possessions. Despite the brutal shot-making, he managed to salvage some utility through disciplined positional defense (+5.0). His inability to generate clean separation remains a glaring issue right now.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 22.1m -12.7
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Crashing back to earth offensively after a highly efficient stretch, he had to rely entirely on his motor to stay on the floor. Elite defensive rotations (+6.2) and relentless loose-ball pursuit (+5.8 hustle) kept his head above water despite the broken jumper. He proved he can still be a net-positive contributor when his scoring touch completely abandons him.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 23.9m -13.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.0

Dominant interior finishing fueled a robust +8.0 overall rating, as he consistently sealed off his man for high-percentage looks around the basket. Active offensive rebounding and rim-runs (+3.3 hustle) maximized his offensive footprint. However, his overall ceiling was capped by offering almost zero resistance as a back-line defender (+0.4).

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.4
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 21.9m -12.5
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Johnson 21.4m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive efficiency, resulting in a poor -6.9 net impact. The shot selection was highly questionable, often bailing out the defense early in the possession. He provided marginal defensive value, but it wasn't nearly enough to offset the wasted offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 21.4m -12.2
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Will Riley 10.8m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A stark departure from his recent scoring tears, he looked completely disengaged during a brief, low-impact stint (-1.8). He failed to leave any imprint on the game, floating on the perimeter rather than attacking off the bounce. The lack of defensive or hustle contributions made him an easy candidate for an early hook.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 10.8m -6.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged just a handful of seconds at the end of a quarter. He did not accumulate enough floor time to register any meaningful statistical impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -250.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.2m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0