GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Lawson Lovering 31.7m
11
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Anchoring the paint with a strong physical presence generated highly efficient looks around the basket. Sealing off defenders early in the possession allowed for easy entry passes and high-percentage finishes. This methodical interior approach steadily built a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 31.7m -17.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jahmai Mashack 31.4m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Fantastic defensive metrics were entirely undone by offensive spacing issues and empty possessions. The inability to capitalize on the other end allowed opponents to ignore him on the perimeter and pack the paint. This offensive stagnation negated all the value created by his point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +8.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 31.4m -17.2
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S GG Jackson 27.9m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Sloppy ball security and defensive lapses in transition completely erased the value of his scoring output. Giving up easy run-out layups after live-ball mistakes created a negative swing that the half-court offense couldn't overcome. A lack of situational awareness during fast-break defense defined his surprisingly poor rating.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 27.9m -15.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jaylen Wells 26.8m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Elite hustle metrics and defensive tenacity completely masked a horrific shooting performance. Chasing down loose balls and blowing up passing lanes created enough chaos to offset his offensive struggles. His relentless ball pressure against opposing guards was the defining factor that kept his rating positive.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 26.8m -14.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Overcame a brutal shooting night by dominating the margins with relentless positional defense. Willingness to crash the glass and contest shots at the rim salvaged his overall value. His high-motor closeouts on perimeter shooters kept him firmly in the green despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 24.5m -13.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Abandoning the three-point line to relentlessly attack the rim resulted in a stellar offensive rating. Finishing through contact and punishing smaller defenders in the paint dictated the tempo of the game. This aggressive downhill mentality was the clear driver behind his massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 29.6m -16.2
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Javon Small 29.4m
16
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.2

Absolute dominance on the defensive end fueled a massive positive swing. Smothering ball pressure and active hands completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm, generating multiple empty trips. This elite defensive clinic easily overshadowed a mediocre shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +11.7
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 29.4m -16.1
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
Cam Spencer 20.7m
10
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+7.1

Masterful offensive orchestration and precise playmaking tore the opposing defense apart. Manipulating pick-and-roll coverages to find open cutters generated exceptionally high-quality looks for the entire unit. Prioritizing distribution over his own shot fueled one of the highest impact scores on the roster.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 20.7m -11.4
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Smart, methodical decision-making in the half-court kept the offense humming without forcing the issue. Operating as a crucial release valve against pressure, his precise reads stabilized the unit. This low-volume, high-efficiency approach perfectly illustrates his subtle but positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 18.1m -9.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 38.0m
5
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.4

A complete inability to find an offensive rhythm resulted in a disastrous rating drop. Passive decision-making against aggressive closeouts led to forced, late-clock attempts that consistently bailed out the defense. His lack of rim pressure made him a glaring liability on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 38.0m -20.9
Impact -17.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ace Bailey 32.8m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Inefficient perimeter volume severely undercut his overall value despite decent activity levels. Forcing contested looks from beyond the arc stalled out offensive momentum during crucial second-half stretches. The sheer number of empty possessions ultimately dragged his rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 32.8m -18.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S John Konchar 30.9m
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.2

Defensive disruption and relentless energy completely overshadowed a quiet scoring night. Generating extra possessions through timely deflections and hard closeouts created a massive swing in momentum. His willingness to execute the dirty work against primary scorers kept his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +11.1
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 30.9m -17.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 28.2m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite shot selection and a relentless approach in the paint anchored a highly efficient performance. Establishing deep post position early in the shot clock allowed him to dictate terms against smaller defenders. This sustained interior dominance perfectly explains his massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 28.2m -15.5
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
S Isaiah Collier 24.9m
24
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.0

A masterful blend of downhill rim pressure and stifling point-of-attack defense fueled a dominant two-way showing. Consistently beating his primary defender off the dribble forced defensive collapses that opened up the entire floor. Elite finishing in traffic cemented his status as the primary offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 24.9m -13.6
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 4
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.1

Clunky offensive execution and a step-slow defensive rotation resulted in a deeply negative impact score. Missing highly contested looks in traffic consistently fueled opponent transition opportunities. Failing to contain dribble penetration compounded the damage on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 22.8m -12.5
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.5

Forced isolation attempts against set defenses completely derailed his overall efficiency. Settling for heavily contested midrange jumpers instead of moving the ball effectively killed several offensive runs. This pattern of poor shot selection was the primary anchor dragging down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 19.3m -10.6
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Blake Hinson 16.1m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Flawless execution as a floor spacer maximized his value in limited minutes. Punishing defensive rotations with decisive catch-and-shoot daggers completely altered the geometry of the court. He provided the exact type of low-maintenance offensive gravity that elevates secondary units.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 16.1m -8.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Failing to establish any physical presence inside led to a surprisingly negative stint. Defensive lapses in drop coverage allowed easy floaters, while an inability to seal defenders on the block rendered him invisible offensively. This lack of engagement resulted in a steep drop-off from his usual standard.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 14.3m -7.9
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brief, unimpactful rotation stint failed to generate any measurable positive momentum. Struggling to integrate into the half-court flow, his presence allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. The lack of offensive gravity ultimately made him a net negative during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 7.4m -4.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 5.2m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Instant offense off the bench provided a massive, immediate jolt to the unit's spacing. Perfect execution on pick-and-pop actions punished the defense for dropping too deep into the paint. His veteran savvy in finding soft spots on the perimeter maximized his brief cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0