GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
26
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.7

Elite rim deterrence and versatile scoring fueled a massive positive impact across all categories, anchoring the team on both ends. He consistently warped the opponent's offensive geometry, forcing guards to completely abandon drives into the paint. His ability to trail the play and hit back-to-back transition threes in the third quarter completely broke the game open.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +8.1
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 33.2m -17.5
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cam Spencer 28.0m
4
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-14.4

An icy shooting night from beyond the arc completely tanked his offensive value and allowed the defense to collapse into the paint without consequence. He struggled to create separation off the dribble, resulting in heavily contested, late-clock heaves that fueled opponent fast breaks. Missing three consecutive wide-open corner looks during a pivotal third-quarter run epitomized his frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 28.0m -14.7
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 26.8m
17
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Superb shot selection and decisive off-ball cutting drove a highly efficient offensive performance that easily outpaced his recent averages. He consistently found the soft spots in the defense, converting high-percentage looks at the rim to buoy his positive net rating. A crucial sequence of back-door cuts in the second half punished the opponent's over-aggressive perimeter denial.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 26.8m -14.2
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jock Landale 25.9m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Sluggish pick-and-roll coverages heavily dragged down his overall rating, as opposing guards repeatedly turned the corner against his drop defense. While he managed to finish decently around the rim, his lack of vertical spacing limited the offense's ceiling. Getting consistently sealed out of rebounding position by smaller players in the fourth quarter proved costly and generated extra opponent possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 25.9m -13.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 25.4m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Despite showing excellent lateral quickness and generating solid defensive metrics, his offensive limitations severely hurt the team's overall spacing and tanked his net score. He repeatedly passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the offensive engine and forcing late-clock bailouts. A specific stretch of stagnant half-court possessions in the second quarter highlighted his reluctance to attack closeouts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 25.4m -13.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
GG Jackson 24.5m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Opportunistic scoring and active weak-side help rotations kept his overall impact in the positive territory despite a dip in his usual scoring volume. He played within the flow of the offense, taking only what the defense conceded rather than forcing isolation plays. His chasedown block in transition during the second quarter highlighted a disciplined, high-effort defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 24.5m -12.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
John Konchar 24.5m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.1

Flawless execution of his role player duties resulted in a remarkably high impact score despite low offensive usage. He connected the offense with quick decision-making and secured crucial extra possessions through relentless effort on the glass. Crashing from the perimeter to secure a massive offensive rebound putback in the fourth quarter perfectly encapsulated his gritty performance.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 24.5m -12.9
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

Smothering point-of-attack defense generated excellent defensive metrics, but his complete inability to put the ball in the basket resulted in a negative overall score. He was entirely ignored by the opposing scheme, which aggressively trapped the primary ball-handlers instead of guarding him. A pair of blown fast-break layups early in the game set a poor offensive tone that he never shook off.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 21.2m -11.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

Physical drives to the basket and a willingness to absorb contact fueled a steady, positive offensive impact that kept the chains moving. He leveraged his frame well to create passing angles when the defense collapsed, keeping the ball moving efficiently around the perimeter. A strong sequence of attacking closeouts to generate free throw attempts helped stabilize the offense during a sluggish first half.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 20.0m -10.5
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief stint, frequently arriving late on defensive rotations and compromising the shell. His offensive involvement was minimal, as he mostly floated on the perimeter without aggressively hunting his shot or cutting to the basket. Committing a foul on a three-point shooter completely erased whatever marginal value he provided on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 10.5m -5.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Moussa Diabaté 33.1m
18
pts
19
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.4

Absolute dominance on the glass and elite rim protection fueled a massive positive impact score that completely altered the game's geometry. He neutralized opposing drives in the paint, altering countless shots without committing costly fouls. A dominant second-quarter rebounding stretch essentially ended multiple opponent possessions and ignited the team's transition offense.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +53.3
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +11.9
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 33.1m -17.4
Impact +20.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Brandon Miller 29.8m
26
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

High-volume shot creation drove the bulk of his positive value, as he confidently hunted his spots off the dribble and punished drop coverages. His length disrupted passing lanes effectively, adding subtle defensive value to his primary scoring punch. Hitting consecutive contested wing threes in the fourth quarter broke the opposing defense's zone scheme and sealed his strong overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +57.4
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 29.8m -15.7
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 28.4m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Ruthless efficiency around the rim anchored a highly productive offensive showing that heavily boosted his net rating. He consistently punished mismatches in the post, bullying smaller defenders to generate clean looks without forcing bad shots. His defensive versatility on the wing further elevated his impact, particularly when switching onto quick guards during a dominant second-half run.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +56.6
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 28.4m -14.9
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 25.9m
10
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.2

A sharp drop-off in offensive aggression saw him deferring too often on the perimeter, stalling the half-court offense. Despite generating solid hustle metrics through loose ball recoveries, his overall impact flatlined due to late-game defensive miscommunications. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts during a crucial third-quarter stretch, erasing his marginal positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +46.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 25.9m -13.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 23.4m
16
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.0

Playmaking gravity and active hands in the passing lanes kept his overall impact in the green despite a somewhat inefficient shooting night. However, a tendency to settle for early-clock, contested perimeter jumpers limited his offensive ceiling and prevented a higher net score. His ability to force live-ball turnovers during a chaotic first-quarter run provided a necessary spark that kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 23.4m -12.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 22.1m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Passive decision-making on offense allowed the defense to comfortably sag off and clog passing lanes, dragging his net impact deep into the negative. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, frequently requiring help rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell. Getting targeted repeatedly in isolation during the third quarter heavily exposed his lateral limitations.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 22.1m -11.6
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Bricklaying from the corners cratered his offensive value and allowed the opposition to cheat off him constantly to double the post. He provided some physical resistance on the interior, but it wasn't nearly enough to offset the severe spacing issues he created. A sequence of three missed wide-open looks in the second half completely killed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -47.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 19.6m -10.3
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.9

Tunnel vision and forced attempts at the rim resulted in a highly inefficient outing that torpedoed his net impact and snapped his recent hot streak. He repeatedly drove into multiple defenders, leading to blocked shots and easy transition opportunities going the other way. His inability to adjust to the opponent's drop coverage defined a frustrating, momentum-halting offensive performance.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 17.4m -9.0
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 16.4m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.8

Offensive invisibility severely punished his overall rating, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint and disrupt his teammates. While he stayed active with off-ball movement and decent closeouts, the lack of a scoring threat broke the team's spacing. A string of forced, heavily contested drives early in the game resulted in empty possessions that dug an early hole.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 16.4m -8.6
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Flawless execution in the pick-and-roll allowed him to maximize his limited minutes on the floor and post a highly efficient positive rating. He served as a massive deterrent at the rim, dropping deep and forcing opposing guards into tough, low-percentage floaters. One critical sequence of back-to-back blocks in the second quarter completely stalled the opponent's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -63.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 14.9m -7.9
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A brief, ineffective stint was marred by rushed offensive execution and a failure to blend into the offensive flow. He looked a step slow navigating through screens, giving up easy penetration on the defensive end that required emergency rim protection. Committing a careless moving screen penalty quickly earned him a trip back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 6.1m -3.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 3.0m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Managed to squeeze a quick perimeter bucket into an extremely brief appearance to keep his net rating slightly positive. His court time was too limited to register any meaningful defensive or hustle metrics. A quick pull-up jumper in transition was the sole defining moment of his cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 3.0m -1.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0