GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Elite weak-side rim deterrence anchored the interior defense, forcing opponents to constantly alter their approach angles. Unfortunately, a lack of touch on post hooks and forced perimeter attempts severely dragged down his offensive efficiency. The stark contrast between his defensive dominance and offensive struggles resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.9
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 37.1m -22.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 36.8m
28
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.2

Unrelenting aggression on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit. He consistently outworked his primary matchup in the trenches, turning physical positioning into highly efficient interior finishes. This breakout performance was fueled by a relentless motor that never downshifted in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 36.8m -22.7
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ja Morant 34.5m
40
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.3

Breathtaking burst in the open floor allowed him to bypass the primary line of defense at will. He showcased elite body control to finish through contact, punishing drop coverages with an array of devastating floaters. His ability to collapse the paint on every drive dictated the entire geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 16/22 (72.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +36.6
Avg player in 34.5m -21.3
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaylen Wells 32.0m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

Tremendous effort on 50/50 balls and loose-ball recoveries padded his hustle metrics significantly. However, a few mistimed defensive gambles in the passing lanes surrendered easy driving angles that compromised the backline. His timely weak-side cuts kept the offense moving, though it wasn't quite enough to push his net rating into the positive.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +9.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 32.0m -19.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

Sluggish footwork in pick-and-roll coverage made him a frequent target for opposing guards on switches. He failed to establish deep post position on the other end, resulting in empty trips and clogged driving lanes for his teammates. Being outmuscled on the glass during crucial stretches further amplified his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 19.6m -12.1
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Santi Aldama 36.3m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Strong positional awareness yielded a positive defensive rating, but his impact was hollowed out by defensive rebounding lapses that extended opponent possessions. He found success as a trail-man in transition, yet struggled to create his own shot against set defenses. A tendency to float on the perimeter during critical half-court sets limited his overall influence.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 36.3m -22.2
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 4
GG Jackson 23.0m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

A stark lack of offensive involvement rendered him mostly invisible during his shifts. He failed to attack closeouts with his usual aggression, allowing the defense to recover without paying a price. Without his typical scoring punch to bend the defense, his minutes were largely a net negative for the spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 23.0m -14.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Cam Spencer 18.5m
7
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Crisp ball-swinging kept the offense humming, but his reluctance to look for his own shot made him easy to guard. Opponents aggressively sagged off him to clog the driving lanes, daring him to shoot. This passivity ultimately compressed the floor and bogged down the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 18.5m -11.4
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 18.3m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Ill-advised attempts from beyond the arc short-circuited several promising offensive possessions. He struggled to anchor the paint against quicker bigs, frequently arriving a half-step late on weak-side rotations. The inability to stretch the floor effectively allowed the defense to pack the paint against the team's primary slashers.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 18.3m -11.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

A quick burst of decisive playmaking injected life into the offense during a brief cameo. He exploited scrambled defensive matchups in semi-transition, making the right reads without forcing the issue. His stabilizing presence on the ball ensured the team maintained its momentum during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 8.9m -5.4
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 43.1m
34
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
+16.6

Relentless downhill attacks compromised the defensive shell all night, generating high-value looks at the rim and kick-out opportunities. His pristine decision-making out of the pick-and-roll maximized offensive possessions without sacrificing ball security. He dictated the tempo entirely, forcing the defense into impossible rotation choices.

Shooting
FG 13/21 (61.9%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.1m
Offense +34.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.9
Raw total +43.1
Avg player in 43.1m -26.5
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 40.8m
25
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.5

Elite point-of-attack defense defined this outing, completely disrupting the opponent's primary actions on the perimeter. That defensive energy translated directly to the offensive end, where confident catch-and-shoot execution punished sagging defenders. He consistently made the right reads in transition to maximize his two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +11.5
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 40.8m -25.3
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paul George 39.1m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.3

Poor perimeter efficiency torpedoed his overall impact, as he settled for heavily contested looks from deep. The resulting long rebounds fueled transition opportunities for the opponent, compounding a sluggish defensive showing. His inability to find a rhythm broke the offense's flow during half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 39.1m -24.1
Impact -17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 38.1m
34
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.3

Massive offensive usage buoyed his baseline metrics, but a heavy diet of missed mid-range jumpers capped his overall ceiling. He absorbed constant double-teams, which successfully opened up passing lanes for teammates even when his own shot wasn't falling. Imposing rim protection partially offset the damage done by his inefficient shooting volume.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 38.1m -23.4
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Dominick Barlow 24.5m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.8

Exceptional rim-running and decisive finishing around the basket drove a highly positive offensive rating. He capitalized on defensive rotations by finding soft spots in the dunker spot, maintaining a hyper-efficient scoring streak. Active hands in the paint also deterred interior drives, anchoring the second-unit defense.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 24.5m -15.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Stifling on-ball pressure yielded a strong defensive rating, but his offensive passivity hurt the team's spacing. By frequently passing up open perimeter looks, he allowed his defender to cheat into the driving lanes. The resulting stagnation during his minutes dragged his overall net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.8
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 37.5m -23.0
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 25.6m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Operating strictly as a screener and decoy, his complete lack of offensive aggression allowed the defense to play five-on-four in the half-court. While his drop-coverage positioning was fundamentally sound, it wasn't enough to overcome his statistical invisibility on the other end. He struggled to make himself available as a lob threat when guards penetrated the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 25.6m -15.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jared McCain 12.7m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Rushed mechanics on contested jumpers quickly derailed his brief stint on the floor. He failed to create separation against longer defenders, leading to empty possessions that stalled the second unit's momentum. A lack of secondary playmaking meant he couldn't salvage value when his shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 12.7m -7.8
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

A fleeting appearance was defined entirely by a couple of high-energy closeouts on the perimeter. He stayed disciplined in his defensive rotations during his brief stint, preventing any easy backdoor cuts. The limited sample size kept his overall footprint essentially neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 3.6m -2.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0