GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
30
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Dominated the interior matchups to fuel a massive +23.6 box impact. His ability to stretch the floor while maintaining consistent rim deterrence (+1.5 Def) created a nightmare assignment for opposing bigs.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +23.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 31.0m -19.0
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jock Landale 28.3m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Strong positional defense (+4.0) was completely overshadowed by clunky offensive execution that sank his total impact to -6.8. Fumbled entry passes and blown layups around the basket short-circuited multiple half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 28.3m -17.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 27.7m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Despite solid baseline metrics and decent defensive activity (+1.8), hidden negative plays pulled his total impact into the red (-4.9). Late closeouts and poorly timed fouls allowed the opposition to generate easy momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 27.7m -17.1
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 25.7m
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Blistering perimeter efficiency drove a strong +14.6 box score, but defensive lapses (-0.8) and off-ball tracking issues dragged his net impact to neutral. He consistently punished drop coverage from deep, though he gave much of it back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 25.7m -15.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 20.4m
19
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.6

Masterful orchestration of the second unit drove a robust +8.6 total impact rating. His decisive dribble penetration and active hands in the passing lanes (+3.0 Hustle) kept the offense humming seamlessly.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 20.4m -12.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Cam Spencer 25.1m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to boost his box score, but struggled with off-ball physicality, resulting in a slightly negative net impact. Opposing guards targeted him in isolation, neutralizing his offensive spacing value.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 25.1m -15.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.2

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+4.8) and lethal corner spacing generated an elite +8.2 total impact score. He completely derailed the opponent's primary actions while punishing them for helping off the strong side.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 22.5m -13.8
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 21.2m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

High-level defensive rotations (+4.7) anchored a highly productive stint off the bench. He utilized his length perfectly to blow up dribble hand-offs, translating defensive stops into efficient transition finishes.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 21.2m -13.1
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.9

A severe lack of offensive rhythm and uncharacteristic defensive missteps (-1.0) resulted in a team-worst -11.9 total impact. Getting caught on back-screens repeatedly compromised the defensive shell during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 19.1m -11.7
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Transitioned into a pure utility role, using his length to generate a +3.8 defensive impact despite a stark drop in offensive usage. His willingness to do the dirty work on the glass kept his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 19.1m -11.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 40.2m
19
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-8.7

Inefficient shot selection completely derailed his overall impact (-8.7) despite bringing solid energy on the margins (+3.1 Hustle). Settling for contested looks from beyond the arc snapped a streak of highly efficient offensive outings.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 40.2m -24.8
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Anthony Edwards 39.7m
39
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.9

An aggressive downhill mentality snapped a recent scoring slump and generated a stellar +6.1 hustle rating. The sheer volume of his rim pressure forced defensive collapses, driving a highly productive +7.9 total impact score.

Shooting
FG 13/27 (48.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +6.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 39.7m -24.4
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 36.8m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

Elite shooting efficiency fueled a massive +32.0 Box score, serving as the primary engine for his overall positive impact. His perimeter spacing punished late closeouts, though a negative defensive rating (-1.2) slightly capped his ceiling on the night.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +32.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.2
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 36.8m -22.7
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.3

Exceptional two-way play defined this outing, pairing lethal perimeter efficiency with a suffocating +5.5 defensive rating. His ability to navigate screens and disrupt passing lanes perfectly complemented his spot-up spacing.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.6%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 33.7m -20.7
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 25.1m
7
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Anchored the paint effectively to generate a strong +4.7 defensive impact, compensating for a significant drop in offensive volume. His rim deterrence altered multiple drives, allowing him to maintain a net-positive rating despite limited touches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 25.1m -15.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Naz Reid 25.8m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Stellar interior rotations yielded a massive +8.1 defensive rating, but clunky offensive execution kept his total impact slightly in the red. Forced too many contested looks in the mid-range, continuing a recent trend of inefficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 25.8m -16.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
Bones Hyland 16.6m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

Failed to provide his usual scoring punch off the bench, leading to a steep -6.4 total impact rating. His inability to create separation against secondary defenders neutralized his primary value as a spark-plug creator.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 16.6m -10.2
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mike Conley 14.3m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

A complete lack of offensive production cratered his overall impact score (-7.2) during a brief stint on the floor. While he provided marginal defensive stability, his inability to bend the defense as a ball-handler stalled out half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 14.3m -8.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Struggled to find the pace of the game, resulting in negative marks across both offensive and defensive metrics. Missed rotations on the perimeter compounded his empty offensive possessions during a rough seven-minute stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 7.7m -4.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0