GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A heavy negative impact score reflects a disjointed performance marred by mistimed defensive gambles and costly fouls. Despite active rim protection numbers, his inability to secure defensive rebounds allowed opponents to feast on second-chance opportunities. The offense routinely bogged down when he tried to force isolation looks against set double-teams.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 32.4m -18.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ja Morant 29.9m
23
pts
2
reb
12
ast
Impact
+7.2

Dictated the tempo of the entire game by relentlessly collapsing the defense and spraying passes to open shooters. His high positive impact was fueled by elite rim pressure that forced the opponent into constant rotation. Pushed the pace off missed shots beautifully, generating easy transition buckets before the defense could set.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 29.9m -16.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
S Cedric Coward 26.3m
17
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Anchored the wing defense with suffocating length, consistently blowing up dribble handoffs and forcing late-clock resets. His positive net score was driven by this elite perimeter containment combined with timely weak-side spot-up shooting. Thrived as a two-way connector who rarely forced the issue on either end.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 26.3m -14.7
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 25.6m
18
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Volume shooting masked a highly inefficient offensive outing that nearly dragged his impact into the negative. Kept his head above water by aggressively attacking closeouts and getting to his spots, even if the perimeter jumper wasn't falling. His willingness to take tough shots late in the clock bailed out several stagnant possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 25.6m -14.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S John Konchar 20.8m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Operated as a complete non-threat offensively, allowing his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes. His excellent point-of-attack defense and rotational awareness kept the game close, but his passivity with the ball ultimately hurt the team's spacing. A classic case of defensive value being undone by offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 20.8m -11.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jock Landale 27.9m
13
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.1

Dominated the interior with physical screen-setting and excellent positional defense that deterred drives to the basket. His high net impact was driven by a relentless effort to seal off the glass and limit the opponent to one shot per possession. Overcame a slightly inefficient shooting night by generating extra possessions through sheer force in the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 27.9m -15.6
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 20.8m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Scaled back his usual scoring volume to play a highly efficient, mistake-free complementary role. His positive impact was heavily influenced by active off-ball movement and high-energy hustle plays that kept offensive possessions alive. Showed great maturity by taking only high-quality looks within the flow of the offense.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 20.8m -11.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Cam Spencer 20.5m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Surrendered too much ground on the defensive end, frequently getting hunted in mismatch situations by bigger wings. While he provided a moderate scoring punch, his overall impact suffered due to slow closeouts and poor screen navigation. The defensive bleeding ultimately outweighed his spot-up shooting contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 20.5m -11.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

A brutal stint characterized by offensive stagnation and an inability to stay in front of his man on the perimeter. His negative impact score plummeted as he repeatedly derailed half-court sets with indecisive ball-handling and forced passes. Opponents actively targeted his side of the floor, exploiting his slow lateral rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 18.1m -10.1
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Flawless shooting execution was offset by a surprising lack of defensive impact during his minutes on the floor. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, allowing shooters to shake loose for uncontested looks that negated his offensive output. A quiet, low-usage performance that left almost no footprint on the game's overall momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 17.9m -9.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.0m
32
pts
15
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.8

Commanded the offensive flow with an aggressive downhill attack that consistently broke the paint. His massive overall impact was fueled by relentless rim pressure and high-level defensive rebounding that ignited transition opportunities. Thrived as the primary initiator during a dominant second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 39.0m -21.8
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 35.1m
3
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.7

Offensive execution completely cratered his net impact, as he routinely bricked open floaters and stalled half-court possessions. While his point-of-attack defense remained highly disruptive, the inability to punish sagging defenders severely cramped the floor for his teammates. Opponents simply ignored him on the perimeter, neutralizing his playmaking value.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.2%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 35.1m -19.6
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Tremendous hustle metrics and active hands in passing lanes couldn't overcome disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc. His tendency to force early-clock, contested jumpers derailed several offensive possessions and dragged his net score negative. The defensive intensity was commendable, but erratic perimeter execution ultimately cost the team momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +7.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 33.5m -18.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 27.6m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Despite flashing an expanded perimeter game, his overall impact slipped into the red due to costly defensive lapses in drop coverage. Gave back much of his offensive production by biting on pump fakes and surrendering deep post position. The negative net score reflects a struggle to anchor the interior against physical drives.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 27.6m -15.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 7
S Corey Kispert 13.8m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Provided a quick burst of efficient floor spacing that kept the offense flowing during his short stint. His positive impact was anchored by disciplined perimeter defense rather than high-volume usage. Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to punish defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 13.8m -7.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CJ McCollum 26.0m
15
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.3

Kept the offense stabilized with timely midrange creation when primary actions broke down. Surprisingly, his impact was buoyed by disciplined weak-side defensive rotations that prevented easy corner looks. Managed to stay in the green by avoiding costly live-ball turnovers despite facing heavy ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 26.0m -14.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 24.7m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.6

Punished defensive breakdowns with lethal efficiency, capitalizing on every sliver of space to warp the opponent's defensive shell. His massive net positive score was amplified by surprising off-ball hustle, including several key deflections that sparked transition breaks. Operated flawlessly as a spacer, making opponents pay dearly for over-helping in the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 24.7m -13.7
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Generated extra possessions through sheer motor, utilizing his length to keep offensive rebounds alive in traffic. His positive impact was entirely driven by these high-energy hustle plays rather than offensive polish. Survived a few blown defensive rotations by recovering quickly to contest at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +6.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 18.0m -10.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to anchor the interior during his minutes, frequently getting caught out of position on pick-and-roll dives. While he finished his limited looks around the basket, his negative impact was driven by slow closeouts that conceded open perimeter shots. The lack of rebounding presence allowed opponents to dictate the tempo during his shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 11.4m -6.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Maximized a brief rotation stint by making quick, decisive reads against a scrambling defense. His positive score stems from mistake-free offensive execution rather than defensive resistance, where he struggled slightly to contain dribble penetration. A perfectly timed backdoor cut highlighted his situational awareness.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 10.9m -6.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0