GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
23
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Anchored the interior with disciplined rim protection, altering several shots without fouling to drive his positive defensive metrics. Offensively, he leveraged his size mismatches in the post to generate high-percentage looks and collapse the defense. His steady two-way execution provided a reliable stabilizing force for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 32.4m -18.0
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cam Spencer 30.1m
7
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-6.3

Operated effectively as a primary facilitator, consistently finding cutters and open shooters to generate a strong box score metric. However, his inability to keep defenses honest with his own shot allowed opponents to go under screens and disrupt the flow. The resulting offensive stagnation when he tried to score ultimately pushed his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 30.1m -16.6
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jock Landale 28.2m
13
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Dominated the painted area by establishing deep post position and punishing smaller defenders on switches. His defensive positioning (+4.8) was superb, frequently walling off drivers and securing the defensive glass to end possessions. This highly efficient, physical performance was a massive net positive for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 28.2m -15.6
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 27.9m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.4

Shot selection was a glaring issue, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock to the detriment of the offense. The resulting empty possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities, cratering his overall impact score (-17.4). While he showed some flashes of effort on the glass, it couldn't mask the offensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.9%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 27.9m -15.5
Impact -17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Cedric Coward 25.5m
13
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.3

Offensive struggles severely dragged down his overall rating, as he failed to convert on several high-value looks at the rim. He attempted to compensate by crashing the boards and playing physical defense (+1.7 Def), but the missed opportunities stalled the team's momentum. The negative impact largely stems from offensive inefficiency rather than a lack of effort.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 25.5m -14.3
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Santi Aldama 28.8m
15
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.5

Stretched the floor beautifully, forcing opposing bigs out of the paint and opening up driving lanes for his guards. His defensive awareness (+3.5) was a quiet standout, as he made several timely weak-side rotations to deter layups. A highly effective complementary performance that kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 28.8m -15.9
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a steadying presence on the wing, taking what the defense gave him and knocking down open perimeter looks. His defensive impact was muted but mistake-free, staying in front of his man without gambling. The result was a solid, low-variance performance that slightly edged into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 22.5m -12.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
GG Jackson 21.0m
18
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Hunted his shot aggressively, using his athleticism to create separation and hit tough perimeter jumpers. While his scoring punch was vital, his defensive engagement (+0.2) was largely passive, allowing opponents to trade baskets on the other end. The heavy offensive load kept his impact positive, though the defensive lapses prevented a higher score.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 21.0m -11.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Struggled to finish through contact around the basket, leaving several easy points on the board and hurting the offensive flow. He provided some resistance at the rim defensively (+1.8), but his inability to secure contested rebounds gave the opponent second-chance opportunities. The offensive inefficiency ultimately outweighed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.7m -7.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Made his mark during a brief stint by locking down the perimeter and navigating screens with veteran precision (+2.3 Def). His hustle metrics popped as he chased down loose balls and disrupted passing lanes to create extra possessions. Even with a quiet scoring night, his defensive intensity ensured a positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 9.9m -5.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Ajay Mitchell 38.0m
23
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.4

Relentless off-ball movement and high-motor plays (+6.4 Hustle) allowed him to find soft spots in the defense all night. He consistently punished defensive lapses with timely cuts, though some defensive miscommunications capped his overall net rating. His ability to maintain offensive efficiency while scaling up his usage was a major bright spot.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +6.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 38.0m -21.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Williams 36.3m
26
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+3.1

Broke out of a recent scoring slump by aggressively hunting his midrange spots and bending the defense as a primary initiator. Despite the heavy offensive load, his defensive rotations remained sharp (+3.4 Def), keeping his overall net impact firmly in the green. The lack of three-point production was easily offset by his sheer downhill pressure.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 36.3m -20.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 35.2m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Defensive intimidation was the story here, as he completely neutralized his primary assignment at the point of attack (+7.9 Def). His elite hustle metrics (+5.5) were driven by diving for loose balls and fighting through heavy screens. Even with a rough shooting night from deep, his physical presence dictated the tempo and drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 35.2m -19.5
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Wiggins 31.9m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Capitalized on a massive surge in offensive efficiency by attacking closeouts to generate high-value looks at the rim. His positive defensive metrics (+4.7) reflect disciplined perimeter containment that prevented straight-line drives. The overall impact stayed modestly positive due to a balanced two-way effort rather than overwhelming volume.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 31.9m -17.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Branden Carlson 15.8m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a brief but effective spark off the bench, utilizing his size to disrupt passing lanes and alter shots around the basket (+3.6 Def). His sudden offensive aggression caught the defense off guard, capitalizing on broken plays. The limited minutes kept his overall impact neutral, but the energy shift was palpable.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -41.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 15.8m -8.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
21
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+21.5

Put together an absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency, completely dominating the hustle categories (+10.1) with timely offensive rebounds and deflections. His unexpected scoring eruption broke the opponent's defensive scheme, forcing them into uncomfortable rotations. This was a quintessential glue-guy performance scaled up to star-level impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +10.1
Defense +7.1
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 28.9m -16.1
Impact +21.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 23.9m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Operated as a defensive anchor on the perimeter, blowing up pick-and-roll actions before they could develop (+3.7 Def). His low-usage offensive role meant his impact was entirely dependent on transition creation and turnover generation. He stayed firmly in the positive by making the right reads and avoiding negative plays.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 23.9m -13.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 15.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A brutal shooting slump completely tanked his offensive value, as defenders began sagging off him and clogging the paint. To his credit, he tried to salvage his minutes with relentless defensive tracking and elite hustle (+7.1). Unfortunately, the inability to space the floor ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +7.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.6m -8.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during his brief stint, looking hesitant when the ball swung his way. The lack of offensive assertiveness allowed defenders to cheat off him, stalling the unit's spacing. A quiet defensive showing wasn't enough to rescue a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 7.3m -4.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Saw a massive reduction in his usual offensive role, serving primarily as a floor spacer during his short run. He capitalized on his lone opportunity but failed to make a dent in the hustle or defensive metrics. The overall impact hovered around neutral due to the sheer lack of involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -39.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.1m -3.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0