GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
26
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.5

Elite rim protection and versatile defensive switching drove Jackson's highly positive overall rating, completely overshadowing a wildly inefficient shooting night. He wasted double-digit possessions on forced perimeter looks, but compensated by erasing opponent mistakes at the basket. His sheer physical presence altered countless drives and anchored the entire defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +11.2
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 32.1m -20.8
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
S Jock Landale 32.0m
24
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.9

Operating as an unexpected offensive focal point, Landale generated a massive positive impact through relentless interior finishing. He consistently sealed his man deep in the paint, converting high-percentage looks to shatter his recent scoring averages. This reliable pressure on the rim forced defensive collapses that opened up the entire half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 32.0m -20.7
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 28.3m
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

A string of empty offensive possessions in the second half dragged Coward's overall impact into the red. While he provided solid energy on closeouts, his inability to string together consistent offensive execution stalled team momentum. The scoring output simply masked a lack of true playmaking influence when the offense stagnated.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 28.3m -18.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cam Spencer 28.0m
21
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+5.5

Spencer orchestrated the offense with surgical precision, driving a highly positive impact through elite decision-making and hyper-efficient shot selection. He expertly manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to generate wide-open looks for teammates while punishing defensive sags with timely perimeter daggers. This dual-threat capability completely overwhelmed the opponent's backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 28.0m -18.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 25.1m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.9

Despite finding a better offensive rhythm than usual, Wells suffered a severe negative impact score due to costly off-ball defensive lapses. He was repeatedly caught ball-watching, allowing backdoor cuts that resulted in easy opponent layups. Even a strong showing in loose-ball hustle situations couldn't patch the holes he left in the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 25.1m -16.2
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.7

A disastrous shooting performance completely cratered Caldwell-Pope's impact score, as he failed to connect on multiple uncontested looks from beyond the arc. His inability to punish defensive closeouts severely cramped the floor for the primary creators. Without his usual perimeter gravity, the offense bogged down into stagnant, contested isolation plays.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 23.0m -14.8
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 22.6m
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite converting his field goal attempts at a highly efficient clip, Jackson's overall impact dipped into the negative due to a lack of peripheral engagement. He was frequently late on defensive rotations and failed to generate meaningful disruption in the passing lanes. The scoring efficiency was ultimately offset by his inability to string together consecutive defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 22.6m -14.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
John Konchar 20.3m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Extreme offensive passivity ruined Konchar's net impact, as he essentially removed himself from the scoring equation entirely. By refusing to look at the basket, he allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary ball-handlers. Even a highly disciplined defensive effort couldn't make up for the mathematical disadvantage of playing four-on-five on offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.3m -13.1
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.6

Williams struggled to find any rhythm on either end of the floor, resulting in a heavily negative overall rating. He forced several contested drives into heavy traffic, resulting in wasted possessions and disrupted offensive flow. Furthermore, his typically disruptive point-of-attack defense was noticeably absent, allowing opposing guards to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 20.0m -12.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Small provided a brief spark of offensive efficiency, but his complete lack of defensive resistance kept his overall impact slightly in the red. Opposing guards actively hunted him in pick-and-roll actions, easily turning the corner and collapsing the defense. His perfect shooting marks were ultimately negated by the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +6.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 8.7m -5.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 36.3m
32
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.8

A massive offensive surge pushed Murphy's impact rating sky-high, even with his deep-range attempts failing to fall at a premium rate. He compensated for the shaky perimeter touch by aggressively attacking closeouts and finishing through traffic. Furthermore, his length on the perimeter disrupted passing lanes, contributing to a stellar defensive score.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.0
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 36.3m -23.4
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 33.1m
24
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.5

While his interior finishing efficiency dipped slightly below his usual dominant standard, Williamson's impact remained highly positive due to exceptional defensive engagement. A strong hustle rating highlights his willingness to fight through contact and generate second-chance opportunities. His physical downhill drives consistently forced defensive rotations that opened up the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/11 (54.5%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 33.1m -21.4
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 31.7m
36
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.1

Bey's staggering overall impact was fueled by an absolute flamethrower performance from the perimeter. He capitalized on high-quality catch-and-shoot opportunities to double his recent scoring average without forcing bad looks. This elite shot selection completely broke the opposing defense's game plan.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +36.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +41.6
Avg player in 31.7m -20.5
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 26.7m
8
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

Continuing a concerning trend of poor offensive efficiency, Queen's inability to convert around the basket severely dragged down his overall rating. He managed to salvage some value through excellent positional awareness on the defensive end, anchoring the paint effectively. However, those empty offensive possessions ultimately resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 26.7m -17.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Herbert Jones 24.6m
0
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.2

Complete offensive invisibility cratered Jones's overall impact, as he failed to register a single successful field goal attempt. Opposing defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, which severely cramped the spacing for his teammates. Even his typically reliable point-of-attack defense couldn't offset the damage caused by playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 24.6m -15.8
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.0

A noticeable drop in scoring volume and efficiency limited Fears's offensive ceiling in this matchup. Despite struggling to find his rhythm offensively, he maintained a positive net rating through disciplined on-ball defense and timely rotations. His ability to stay engaged on the less glamorous end of the floor prevented a poor shooting night from becoming a liability.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 23.4m -15.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Yves Missi 21.3m
8
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

An uptick in scoring volume masked a fundamentally inefficient performance that ultimately dragged down Missi's net impact. He struggled to finish through contact in the paint, leaving too many empty possessions on the board. Additionally, his defensive presence was surprisingly muted, failing to deter drivers at the rim during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 21.3m -13.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 15.7m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Peavy's overall rating tanked due to a persistent inability to convert offensive opportunities, continuing a brutal stretch of poor shooting. He forced several contested looks in the mid-range that killed offensive momentum. Lacking any standout defensive or hustle plays to compensate, his minutes were a clear negative for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 15.7m -10.1
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Operating strictly within his role, Matković extended his streak of highly efficient shooting nights by taking only high-percentage looks around the rim. His steady screen-setting and disciplined rim-running provided reliable structure for the second unit. This low-mistake approach yielded a solid positive impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 14.9m -9.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Poole 12.3m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

Errant shot selection and a heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers completely derailed Poole's impact score. He repeatedly settled for low-percentage looks early in the shot clock, stalling the offense and fueling transition opportunities for the opponent. This performance continued a troubling trend of highly inefficient volume shooting.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 12.3m -7.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1