GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Anchored the frontcourt with intimidating rim protection that completely altered the opponent's shot profile. Carried a heavy offensive burden, using his size to consistently punish mismatches in the post.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 29.2m -15.9
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 27.4m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Poor shot selection from the perimeter led to long rebounds and easy transition points for the opposition. Bleeding value on the defensive end compounded his inefficient volume shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 27.4m -15.0
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cam Spencer 27.4m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.8

Hunting catch-and-shoot opportunities off off-ball screens allowed him to break out of a prolonged scoring funk. His disciplined closeouts and active hands in passing lanes elevated his defensive metrics significantly.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 27.4m -14.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S GG Jackson 25.2m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Struggled to find his typical scoring rhythm, often forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. Despite excellent weak-side defensive rotations, his offensive stagnation dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.3
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 25.2m -13.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jock Landale 21.0m
0
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Brick-heavy offensive sequences and an inability to finish through contact severely hindered the second unit's flow. While his positional defense remained sturdy, the complete lack of scoring gravity made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 21.0m -11.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A sharp drop in offensive aggression limited his overall effectiveness, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He still provided immense value as a versatile on-ball defender, but the lack of offensive punch resulted in a slightly negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 26.3m -14.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Santi Aldama 22.2m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts resulted in empty possessions that stalled the offense. He lacked the foot speed to stay in front of quicker forwards, bleeding value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 22.2m -12.2
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Javon Small 20.6m
14
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.9

Efficient scoring and solid playmaking were undone by defensive lapses at the point of attack. He struggled to navigate ball screens, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 20.6m -11.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Playing to a near-neutral draw, he offered adequate rim deterrence while remaining mostly invisible on offense. He missed a couple of easy bunnies at the rim that kept his impact from turning positive.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 20.1m -11.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Thriving as a two-way connector, he hit timely perimeter shots to punish defensive over-helps. He navigated screens flawlessly on the other end to neutralize the opponent's primary perimeter threat.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 16.7m -9.1
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Defined by poor spacing and a rushed offensive foul, his brief stint was highly erratic. He failed to match the game's intensity, leading to a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 4.0m -2.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 30.5m
13
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.6

An uncharacteristic inability to generate separation in isolation derailed his offensive rhythm, resulting in a barrage of missed jumpers. While he remained engaged defensively, the sheer volume of empty possessions in the half-court resulted in a net negative outing.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 30.5m -16.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Broke out of a recent shooting slump by attacking closeouts rather than settling for contested looks. His surprising effectiveness crashing the defensive glass added crucial hidden value to his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 27.6m -15.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 26.9m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

Elite weak-side rotations and timely closeouts generated a massive defensive rating boost. He established a clear pattern of punishing late defensive shifts by capitalizing on perimeter spot-up opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.7
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 26.9m -14.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mark Williams 26.6m
12
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.5

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection drove a team-high total impact score. His ability to anchor the drop coverage against pick-and-rolls completely stifled opponent drives.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +11.3
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 26.6m -14.7
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 25.0m
21
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Shot selection was highly questionable, dragging down his overall efficiency despite a massive scoring surge above his recent average. His aggressive on-ball pressure against primary creators kept his defensive metrics afloat, preventing a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 25.0m -13.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.7

Overcame poor interior finishing by generating massive defensive havoc and pushing the pace in transition. His relentless point-of-attack pressure disrupted opposing sets and fueled a highly positive plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 22.7m -12.4
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 22.4m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

Offensive invisibility cratered his overall rating, as opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint. He failed to convert any of his looks, making it impossible to justify his minutes despite decent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 22.4m -12.3
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, though defensive lapses at the point of attack muted his overall rating. Thriving as a floor spacer, he punished late rotations consistently to generate a positive net margin.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 20.7m -11.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Oso Ighodaro 17.4m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the basket, taking only high-percentage looks as a roll man. His switchability on the perimeter provided a solid defensive floor, even in a low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 17.4m -9.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Maximized a brief rotation stint by converting efficiently as a roll man. Played mistake-free basketball on both ends to provide a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 9.1m -5.0
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Provided a quick jolt of interior physicality during a brief cameo. Sealed off the paint effectively to secure extra possessions and finish dump-off passes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 4.0m -2.2
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Looked lost in defensive coverages during a short stint, giving up easy driving angles. Failed to make any tangible impact before being quickly subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 4.0m -2.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Bleeding points in transition during a disastrous three-minute stretch tanked his rating. Offered zero resistance on the wing and was entirely bypassed on offense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1