GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
21
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Elite rim deterrence and scorching perimeter shooting were surprisingly neutralized in the overall rating by struggles inside the arc. He missed numerous highly contested looks in the paint, failing to punish smaller defenders on switches. The defensive masterclass kept the score afloat, but the interior inefficiency capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +11.9
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 35.9m -19.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 6
S Cam Spencer 29.9m
21
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+14.6

A spectacular two-way breakout performance generated the highest impact score on the roster. He aggressively hunted his shot within the flow of the offense, punishing late closeouts and shattering his usual scoring average. Combined with suffocating point-of-attack defense, he single-handedly swung the momentum during key rotation shifts.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 29.9m -16.1
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 28.3m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.6

Persistent struggles to find the bottom of the net severely damaged his overall value, as he bricked multiple wide-open looks. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions negated a solid, engaged effort on the defensive end. Opponents actively sagged off him, effectively neutralizing the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 28.3m -15.0
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jock Landale 23.7m
19
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.0

Stepping out to knock down perimeter shots completely warped the opposing defensive scheme and drove a massive positive rating. His unexpected offensive explosion shattered his recent baseline, punishing drop coverage repeatedly in pick-and-pop actions. This floor-stretching dynamic opened up crucial driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 23.7m -12.6
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S GG Jackson 22.5m
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.8

A drastic collapse in offensive execution resulted in a team-worst impact score, completely halting his recent scoring surge. He forced out-of-rhythm looks against set defenses, leading to empty possessions that the opposition easily converted into transition points. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his missed shots were highly damaging.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 22.5m -12.0
Impact -13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 23.9m
10
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Outstanding rotational defense was ultimately overshadowed by a frigid shooting performance from the perimeter. He consistently settled for contested deep balls early in the shot clock, bailing out the opposing defense. The inability to convert as a pop threat severely limited the effectiveness of the team's primary pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.9m -12.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.7

Hyper-efficient perimeter execution and relentless off-ball movement fueled a massive positive impact. He perfectly capitalized on defensive breakdowns, punishing the opposition with lethal spot-up shooting from deep. Pairing this offensive clinic with high-level hustle metrics made him the ultimate high-end role player in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 22.1m -11.8
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Failing to connect on any perimeter looks stripped away his primary value as a floor spacer, dragging his rating into the red. Without the threat of his outside shot, the offensive geometry collapsed during his minutes. While his defensive screen navigation remained solid, the lack of scoring gravity proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 19.6m -10.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

Dominating the margins through sheer physicality and elite hustle drove a highly impressive positive rating. He functioned as an absolute brick wall defensively, deterring drives and altering shots at the rim to anchor the second unit. His relentless energy on the glass created crucial second-chance opportunities without requiring plays to be called for him.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 17.7m -9.5
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
Javon Small 16.4m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.4

An absolute offensive nightmare resulted in a catastrophic negative rating, as he blanked completely from the field. He looked completely out of sync, forcing wild drives into traffic that killed the team's momentum. This total disappearing act was a jarring departure from his normally reliable scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 16.4m -8.7
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
SAS San Antonio Spurs
23
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Elite perimeter efficiency and stifling wing defense drove a massive positive impact. Capitalizing on open spot-up opportunities allowed him to shatter his recent scoring baseline. His two-way execution anchored the rotation during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +9.2
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 31.8m -17.1
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S De'Aaron Fox 29.9m
9
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.2

A disastrous shooting night completely tanked his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions negated a surprisingly engaged defensive effort. His inability to find a rhythm as a primary creator stalled out the entire offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 4/18 (22.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 29.9m -16.1
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 28.4m
15
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Inefficient finishing inside the arc dragged his net rating into the red, a sharp drop-off from his recent hot streak. He struggled to finish through contact on drives, leading to empty trips that fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite decent defensive metrics, the offensive friction proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 28.4m -15.1
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Luke Kornet 27.0m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.6

High-level rim deterrence and constant activity on the glass fueled a strong positive rating despite a quiet scoring night. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort while anchoring the paint defensively. This performance highlighted his ability to influence winning without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 27.0m -14.4
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 20.2m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive invisibility severely dragged down his overall rating, as he failed to capitalize on multiple clean perimeter looks. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. While his positional defense remained passable, it wasn't enough to offset the dead weight on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 20.2m -10.8
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the rim ultimately dragged his impact into the negative. The volume of missed deep shots disrupted the offensive flow and led to long rebounds for the opposition. While he brought decent energy on the glass, the poor shot selection outweighed his hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 27.7m -14.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
30
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.3

Utter dominance in isolation and terrifying rim protection culminated in a massive positive rating. He warped the opponent's defensive shell by consistently hitting heavily contested jumpers over smaller matchups. His sheer gravity on both ends of the floor dictated the entire flow of the game during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 47.2%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 21.0m -11.3
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Dylan Harper 18.0m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Elite hustle metrics nearly salvaged a rough outing where his recent shooting efficiency completely abandoned him. He settled for poor perimeter looks instead of attacking the paint, breaking a long streak of high-percentage finishing. However, his relentless pursuit of loose balls kept his overall impact hovering near neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 18.0m -9.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

A sudden regression in perimeter shooting efficiency cratered his overall effectiveness and broke a recent hot streak. Opponents dared him to shoot from deep, and his inability to punish them bogged down the half-court spacing. His defensive versatility couldn't quite make up for the offensive stagnation he caused.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 14.3m -7.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Complete offensive invisibility during his brief rotation stint resulted in a noticeable negative rating. He failed to generate any separation or meaningful pressure on the defense, effectively turning his team into a four-on-five unit offensively. The lack of physical engagement made him a liability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -71.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 9.2m -4.9
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Veteran positioning and high-level hustle allowed him to post a positive rating despite zero offensive production. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and made crucial rotational reads on defense to stall opponent drives. This brief stint was a masterclass in impacting the margins without needing the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 8.6m -4.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Perfect execution in a micro-stint provided a quick jolt of positive impact. He capitalized on his lone offensive opportunity and maintained strict defensive discipline during his brief time on the floor. It was a textbook example of a reserve staying ready and making no mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1