GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
17
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Defensive intimidation defined this performance, with his elite rim protection (+7.5 Def) serving as the backbone of the frontcourt. He consistently altered shots in the paint and generated crucial hustle plays to secure a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 30.1m -17.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ja Morant 28.4m
24
pts
5
reb
13
ast
Impact
+7.8

Operating as an unstoppable offensive engine, his elite dual-threat playmaking shattered the opposing defensive scheme. Uncharacteristically lethal perimeter shooting forced defenders to play up, which he ruthlessly exploited to generate high-value looks for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 28.4m -16.2
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Santi Aldama 25.2m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite converting his looks around the basket efficiently, a failure to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint. His solid defensive metrics (+3.2) couldn't fully compensate for the offensive stagnation that occurred during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 25.2m -14.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 23.2m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Relentless attacking inside the arc salvaged a positive net score (+0.9) despite a completely barren night from three-point range. His ability to finish through contact masked the spacing issues caused by his perimeter struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 23.2m -13.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 20.7m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Blistering perimeter efficiency was surprisingly not enough to keep his net impact out of the red (-0.5). A distinct lack of hustle plays and secondary statistical contributions meant his value was entirely dependent on spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 20.7m -11.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 22.6m
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.8

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency propelled him to a game-high +20.8 impact score. Dominating the interior with near-perfect execution, he capitalized on every rotational mistake while providing sturdy resistance on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +25.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 22.6m -12.8
Impact +20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

A disastrous shooting performance from beyond the arc created a massive offensive sinkhole that tanked his overall value (-3.2). While his perimeter defense was genuinely elite (+6.6 Def), his inability to punish closeouts severely handicapped the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 19.6m -11.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 18.4m
10
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, his crisp shot selection and perimeter spacing kept his impact slightly in the green (+0.6). He didn't force the issue, letting the game come to him and capitalizing on open spot-up opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.4m -10.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
GG Jackson 17.8m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A steep drop-off in scoring aggression resulted in a highly negative overall impact (-4.2). Though he held his own defensively, the second unit desperately missed his usual shot-creation and downhill pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.8m -10.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+6.6 Def) was the sole reason he managed to break even in this contest. Clunky offensive execution and bricked perimeter looks completely erased the value of his defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +6.6
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 17.2m -9.8
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 16.9m
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Off-ball defensive brilliance (+8.4 Def) and timely hustle plays drove a positive impact despite a near-total disappearance on offense. He acted as the ultimate glue guy, blowing up passing lanes and securing extra possessions to offset his scoring drought.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +8.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 16.9m -9.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Anthony Black 37.1m
19
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.8

Scoring volume completely masked a disastrous net impact (-12.8) driven by poor defensive rotations and costly breakdowns. Opponents ruthlessly targeted him on the perimeter, negating any value he provided as a secondary offensive creator.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.4
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 37.1m -21.2
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Desmond Bane 36.5m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Perimeter struggles defined this outing, with his scoring output plummeting nearly 50% below his recent baseline. Although he remained engaged defensively and fought for loose balls, the inability to convert on high-leverage shot attempts dragged his net value into the negative (-6.5).

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 36.5m -20.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 36.0m
16
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
-10.5

A brutal shooting night cratered his overall value (-10.5) as he forced too many contested looks against set defenses. While his playmaking vision remained intact, the sheer volume of empty possessions from 13 missed field goals severely handicapped the offense.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 36.0m -20.5
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.9

Elite floor-spacing from the frontcourt drove a massive positive impact (+10.9) and pulled opposing bigs out of the paint. He paired this offensive efficiency with stout rim protection (+7.9 Def), anchoring the lineup on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.9
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 33.0m -18.8
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Franz Wagner 25.9m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.6

Despite generating solid baseline production, his overall impact dipped into the red (-0.6) due to uncharacteristic inefficiency. A failure to connect from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag, neutralizing his typical driving lanes and stalling offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.9m -14.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

An unexpected scoring surge was entirely undone by defensive lapses. He was repeatedly exploited in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points at a rate that kept his overall impact slightly below water (-0.8).

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense -2.0
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 20.5m -11.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Fading into the background offensively, his massive drop in scoring production severely limited his utility. He managed to provide some resistance on the defensive end, but his hesitancy to attack closeouts rendered him a liability in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 18.5m -10.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 15.0m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Absolute dominance in his limited minutes fueled a stellar +11.2 net score. Perfect execution around the basket combined with elite rim deterrence (+7.0 Def) completely shifted the momentum of the game during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 15.0m -8.5
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Noah Penda 7.6m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Active hands and solid defensive positioning (+2.5 Def) kept his short stint in the green. Even though his shot selection was questionable, a rare perimeter connection provided just enough spacing to benefit the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 7.6m -4.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

A disastrous three-minute cameo tanked his net score (-5.9) almost instantly. Disjointed offensive spacing and a quick missed jumper derailed the unit's rhythm before he was quickly pulled.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -4.1
Avg player in 3.4m -1.8
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Cain 3.4m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Relegated to deep reserve duty, his lack of playing time abruptly snapped a streak of highly efficient scoring performances. He offered a brief flash of defensive energy but couldn't accumulate enough counting stats to push his impact into the positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 3.4m -2.0
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 3.1m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a marginally negative impact (-0.5). He failed to register any meaningful offensive creation during his three minutes, serving merely as a placeholder in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -67.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0