GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S GG Jackson 25.9m
16
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Inefficient volume shooting dragged down his overall rating, as he repeatedly forced contested looks against set defenses. While his defensive metrics (+4.3) showed strong effort in isolation matchups, the wasted offensive possessions stalled Memphis's momentum. Settling for low-percentage midrange pull-ups instead of attacking the rim proved costly.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 25.9m -14.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 24.9m
21
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.2

Surgical precision from beyond the arc punished drop coverages and drove a stellar +8.2 net impact. He dictated the tempo perfectly in the half-court, manipulating pick-and-rolls to create wide-open looks for himself and teammates. Furthermore, his active hands in the passing lanes (+3.8 Def) sparked multiple transition opportunities that broke the game open.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 24.9m -13.9
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 24.6m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite a highly efficient shooting night that boosted his raw box score, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-1.2). He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently requiring help defense that scrambled Memphis's rotations. The scoring efficiency ultimately masked a lack of off-ball activity and physical presence on the glass.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 24.6m -13.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 24.6m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Kept his head above water (+1.4) purely through relentless hustle (+3.4) and second-chance generation, despite a frigid shooting night. His inability to connect from deep cramped the floor, but he compensated by crashing the offensive glass with reckless abandon. This gritty interior work salvaged what would have otherwise been a detrimental offensive performance.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 24.6m -13.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.1

A masterclass in two-way efficiency, pairing elite shot selection with suffocating perimeter defense (+6.7 Def). He consistently beat closeouts and made quick, decisive reads that kept the offense flowing beautifully. Continuing his recent hot streak, his high-motor closeouts and deflections completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 23.2m -13.1
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Overcame an absolutely brutal shooting night from deep by delivering a defensive masterclass (+14.9 Def). He erased multiple shots at the rim and consistently blew up pick-and-rolls with his elite length and switchability. The sheer volume of his hustle plays (+4.5) and rim deterrence completely outweighed his glaring offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +14.9
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 24.2m -13.6
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 6
BLK 3
TO 2
Cam Spencer 20.1m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

A complete lack of physical engagement—evidenced by zero hustle stats—and low offensive usage resulted in a poor -7.2 impact score. Functioning strictly as a spot-up decoy, he failed to put any pressure on the rim or create advantages off the bounce. The opponent easily hid their weakest defender on him, effectively playing 5-on-4 defensively during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 20.1m -11.3
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.7

Offensive stagnation defined his minutes, as he failed to create separation and clanked all of his perimeter looks. Without his usual scoring punch, his lack of size became a target on the other end, leading to a dismal -9.7 overall impact. He was consistently late on closeouts, allowing rhythm jumpers that stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 19.7m -11.1
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Javon Small 19.7m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided steady, low-mistake minutes that yielded a slight positive impact (+1.8) for the rotation. He picked his spots well offensively, hitting timely catch-and-shoot threes while applying excellent point-of-attack pressure (+4.6 Def). His ability to stay in front of his man without fouling was the defining trait of his solid rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 19.7m -11.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tyler Burton 13.3m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Salvaged a positive impact (+2.0) purely through high-IQ defensive rotations (+5.2 Def) despite his jumper totally abandoning him. He acted as a connective tissue on the backline, communicating switches and digging down on drives to force difficult kickouts. While the offensive drop-off was steep, his defensive discipline kept the second unit stable.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 13.3m -7.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.5

Maximized a very short stint by completely locking down the perimeter, generating a massive +5.6 defensive impact. He was an absolute pest on the ball, blowing up handoffs and forcing the offense to reset the shot clock multiple times. Perfect shooting efficiency on low volume ensured he didn't waste any possessions while anchoring the defensive energy.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 10.4m -5.8
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Taj Gibson 9.4m
1
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Proved to be a complete non-factor offensively, failing to attempt a single field goal during his brief shift. His lack of mobility was exposed in the pick-and-roll, allowing opposing guards to turn the corner and collapse the defense. Ultimately, his veteran presence did not translate to tangible production, resulting in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 9.4m -5.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 41.1m
19
pts
8
reb
12
ast
Impact
-3.5

A sharp drop in his usual scoring volume and perimeter efficiency dragged his overall net impact into the red (-3.5). While his playmaking metrics remained strong, an inability to consistently break down his primary defender stalled the half-court offense at critical junctures. Settling for tough, contested jumpers rather than pressuring the rim ultimately capped his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 41.1m -23.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 40.6m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.7

Relentless energy and transition activity fueled a massive +16.7 overall impact, completely eclipsing his usual offensive production. He capitalized on broken plays and loose balls (+7.2 Hustle) to generate extra possessions for Denver. Furthermore, his point-of-attack defense consistently disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +7.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +39.6
Avg player in 40.6m -22.9
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 38.6m
29
pts
14
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.2

Defensive positioning and rebounding dominance (+10.8 Def impact) anchored his massive two-way imprint on this matchup. He systematically dismantled the opponent's interior coverage through sheer efficiency and elite processing speed from the elbows. Even with heavy defensive attention, his ability to generate high-quality looks kept Denver's offensive engine running smoothly.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +10.8
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 38.6m -21.8
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 10
S Cameron Johnson 33.5m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.9

Elite floor spacing drove his positive value, punishing defensive rotations with a blistering mark from beyond the arc. The combination of high-end shotmaking and active hustle (+3.5) kept the offense humming during his minutes. He consistently found the soft spots in the coverage, stretching the defense to its breaking point.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 33.5m -18.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Spencer Jones 26.8m
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Despite a modest scoring bump compared to recent struggles, his overall impact cratered (-8.6). A lack of perimeter gravity and minimal defensive resistance (+0.2) prevented him from positively influencing the floor. His low-usage role ultimately left him as a passenger who failed to tilt the math during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 26.8m -15.2
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.3

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc tanked his value, resulting in a brutal -11.3 overall impact. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, gifting the opponent long rebounds and transition opportunities. Offering virtually no defensive resistance (-0.3) meant there was zero mitigation for his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 27.8m -15.6
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 20.2m
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.6

A complete offensive disappearing act broke his streak of efficient outings, plummeting his impact score to a team-worst -15.6. He was entirely neutralized by opposing wing defenders, failing to generate any downhill pressure or finish at the rim. Despite minor hustle contributions, his total lack of scoring gravity rendered him a severe liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -6.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 20.2m -11.4
Impact -15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Highly effective in a micro-stint, he leveraged his sheer size to generate a robust +4.1 defensive impact. Sealing off the paint and deterring drives during his brief time on the floor allowed him to maximize his limited minutes. The half-court offense operated efficiently around his heavy screens, cementing his status as a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 5.8m -3.2
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Invisible on both ends of the floor, he generated zero hustle stats and a negative defensive impact (-0.9) during his short run. Failing to navigate screens effectively allowed easy penetration that compromised Denver's defensive shell. His lack of aggression left him floating on the perimeter without altering the game's geometry.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 5.5m -3.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1