GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Cedric Coward 27.3m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Wreaked absolute havoc defensively (+8.2) with elite ball-denial and phenomenal hustle metrics (+6.2). Unfortunately, his offensive execution was disastrous, marred by wild finishes at the rim and poor spatial awareness. The sheer number of empty possessions he generated on offense overshadowed his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 27.3m -16.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 26.6m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Generated tremendous value through relentless hustle (+5.7) and active hands in the passing lanes. However, a heavy volume of clanked jumpers and forced drives severely limited his overall net positive. His chaotic energy was a double-edged sword, creating extra possessions but squandering many of them on poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 26.6m -15.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jock Landale 26.0m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Provided sturdy interior resistance (+6.8), but his offensive clumsiness derailed multiple half-court sets. He clogged the driving lanes and committed back-breaking offensive fouls while setting illegal screens. These momentum-killing mistakes ultimately dragged his net impact into the red (-2.0).

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 26.0m -15.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Plagued by costly live-ball turnovers and ill-advised fouls that consistently bailed out the opposing offense. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, forcing late rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell. This cascade of hidden mistakes tanked his overall impact (-6.2) despite decent shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 22.6m -13.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 19.5m
20
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.5

Orchestrated the offense with precision, utilizing clever pace to manipulate the pick-and-roll coverage. Even when his deep perimeter shots weren't falling, his ability to collapse the defense and make the right reads kept the scoreboard ticking. This steady, mistake-free playmaking drove a highly efficient positive impact (+4.5) during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 19.5m -11.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
GG Jackson 27.6m
19
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Showcased a lethal scoring touch by hunting mismatches and finishing efficiently through contact. Yet, his overall influence was heavily muted (+1.8) by a tendency to fall asleep on weak-side defensive rotations. Opponents relentlessly attacked his poor closeouts, clawing back almost all the value he produced on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 27.6m -16.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Cam Spencer 25.4m
5
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

Played with commendable defensive discipline (+4.9), constantly blowing up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. However, his extreme passivity on offense allowed defenders to completely ignore him, ruining the team's spacing. This inability to punish the defense ultimately resulted in a negative net swing (-2.5) while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 25.4m -14.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Dominated the transition game by running the floor with purpose and finishing decisively at the rim. He paired this offensive efficiency with suffocating on-ball pressure (+4.8), completely disrupting the opponent's primary actions. This relentless two-way motor fueled a highly productive stint that swung the momentum in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 22.0m -13.0
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Javon Small 21.6m
7
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.0

Bogged down the offensive flow with a string of heavily contested, low-percentage jumpers early in the shot clock. While he fought hard over screens to provide solid point-of-attack defense (+3.8), his erratic shot selection fueled long opponent rebounds and transition breaks. Those self-inflicted offensive wounds kept his overall impact firmly in the negative (-2.0).

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 21.6m -12.8
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Struggled to stretch the floor after missing a series of wide-open looks from beyond the arc. His inability to contain straight-line drives compounded his offensive woes, forcing teammates into scramble mode defensively. The combination of bricked spacing shots and porous perimeter containment resulted in a damaging negative impact (-3.1).

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 21.4m -12.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 38.7m
33
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Erupted for a massive scoring surge, but erratic shot selection and a barrage of missed jumpers severely capped his true value (+2.4). He routinely forced contested looks early in the shot clock rather than letting the offense flow. The sheer volume of empty trips offset the explosive stretches where he overwhelmed his primary defender.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 14/16 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 38.7m -22.8
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Julius Randle 35.1m
27
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.1

A dominant isolation scoring clinic was heavily muted by sloppy ball security and sluggish transition defense. While his shot-making from the perimeter stretched the floor beautifully, he coughed up crucial possessions that fueled opponent fast breaks. The stark contrast between his raw box score production and modest overall impact (+2.1) highlights these hidden give-backs.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 35.1m -20.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaden McDaniels 34.2m
20
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Despite an efficient shooting night, his overall impact plunged into the red (-4.0) due to hidden costs on the defensive end. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, bleeding easy baskets that erased his offensive contributions. His strong hustle metrics (+3.9) simply couldn't salvage a performance defined by untimely defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 34.2m -20.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 30.8m
9
pts
16
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.4

Anchored the paint with a towering defensive presence (+14.2) that completely deterred drives to the rim. His elite rim protection and relentless work on the glass generated critical extra possessions for his squad. Even with a quiet offensive volume, his sheer physical dominance in the drop coverage scheme drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +14.2
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 30.8m -18.2
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.2

Perimeter defensive struggles (-1.1) wiped out the value of his crisp spot-up shooting. He repeatedly lost his man on off-ball screens, surrendering easy cutting lanes that compromised the team's half-court shell. Consequently, his overall net impact slipped into the negative despite a highly efficient offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.1
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 17.6m -10.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 30.9m
20
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.4

Broke out of a recent slump by pairing lethal perimeter spacing with highly disruptive weak-side defense (+9.6). His ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions while simultaneously stretching the floor created a nightmare matchup for opposing bigs. This two-way versatility drove a massive double-digit net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.6
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 30.9m -18.3
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Mike Conley 17.9m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

A complete lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes, stalling the half-court execution. While he provided excellent point-of-attack resistance on the other end (+7.3), his hesitancy to even look at the rim forced his team to play four-on-five. That scoring void ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 17.9m -10.6
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 16.5m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Careless ball security and poorly timed fouls completely undermined a solid defensive effort. He consistently gave away possessions during transition opportunities, bleeding value that his limited offensive role couldn't recover. The resulting negative swing (-3.0) highlighted the hidden costs of his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +48.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 16.5m -9.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 12.8m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Stagnated the second-unit offense by over-dribbling and missing reads out of the pick-and-roll. His complete lack of measurable hustle plays (+0.0) compounded the damage from his empty offensive trips. Opposing guards routinely targeted him in space, turning his brief appearance into a distinct negative (-3.2).

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 12.8m -7.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Logged a brief, uneventful stint that barely moved the needle in either direction (+0.1). He executed his basic assignments without forcing the issue, maintaining the status quo while the starters rested. His minimal footprint was defined by safe, risk-averse positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +59.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.2m -3.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0