GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jaylen Wells 25.7m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

A complete inability to connect from beyond the arc severely dragged down his overall impact score. Defenders routinely went under screens, daring him to shoot and effectively neutralizing his driving lanes. Despite a slight scoring bump from his recent baseline, the empty perimeter possessions proved too costly for the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 25.7m -16.1
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S GG Jackson 25.6m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Efficient perimeter shot-making wasn't quite enough to keep his net impact out of the red. He likely bled value through off-ball defensive lapses or unforced errors that allowed opponents to capitalize in transition. The scoring punch was evident, but the overall floor game lacked the connective tissue to drive winning minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 25.6m -16.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Ruthless efficiency on hard cuts and transition finishes drove a stellar positive impact rating. He recognized defensive overplays and constantly relocated into open space, punishing the backline without needing plays called for him. This low-maintenance, high-yield offensive approach perfectly complemented the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 25.4m -15.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cam Spencer 22.0m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Struggled to leave a positive footprint as tentative shot selection resulted in a negative overall rating. He passed up marginal advantages to swing the ball, which occasionally stagnated the offense late in the shot clock. While he didn't actively hurt the team with major mistakes, his lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to rest.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 22.0m -13.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.0

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle were completely undone by a catastrophic shooting performance. Missing every single attempt from the floor allowed rim protectors to completely abandon him and suffocate his passing lanes. His playmaking vision was evident, but the lack of scoring gravity made the offense painfully predictable.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -10.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +12.2
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 22.0m -13.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 7
Rayan Rupert 26.3m
10
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Exceptional positional rebounding and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a strong positive impact score. He consistently crashed the glass to secure tough defensive boards, instantly igniting transition opportunities. His length bothered ball-handlers all night, translating high-energy hustle into tangible two-way value.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 26.3m -16.5
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite a welcomed scoring surge that doubled his recent average, subtle defensive miscommunications kept his impact slightly negative. He provided solid floor spacing by knocking down catch-and-shoot looks from the corners. However, late closeouts and missed weakside rotations allowed just enough easy buckets to offset his offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 25.4m -15.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Javon Small 25.0m
21
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.3

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and blistering perimeter efficiency drove a massive positive impact rating. He consistently manipulated drop coverages, punishing defenders who went under screens with lethal pull-up triples. This dual-threat ability to score efficiently while setting up teammates completely unraveled the opposing defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 98.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 25.0m -15.7
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

A sharp drop-off in offensive production and poor spacing severely hampered his on-court value. He struggled to create separation against physical coverage, leading to contested, low-value attempts that sparked opponent run-outs. The resulting empty possessions were the primary driver behind a dismal negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 22.1m -13.8
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.2

A balanced playmaking effort was slightly overshadowed by defensive vulnerabilities at the point of attack. While he successfully navigated traffic to find open shooters, he struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. The resulting defensive breakdowns left his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 20.6m -12.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 34.1m
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.0

Despite a solid defensive rating, his overall impact cratered due to severe offensive inefficiency. Clanking perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, stalling Sacramento's half-court flow. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately resulted in a team-worst negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.1
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 34.1m -21.3
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
25
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.7

A high-volume scoring surge masked the underlying inefficiency that dragged his net impact slightly into the red. Forcing the issue in transition led to empty possessions, offsetting the value of his perimeter shot-making. The sheer volume of offensive usage yielded diminishing returns in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 32.8m -20.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
22
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.8

Absolute dominance around the rim drove a massive positive impact score. He operated exclusively as a play-finisher rather than a creator, converting physical post touches into high-percentage looks to continue a hyper-efficient four-game stretch. His interior gravity forced constant weakside rotations that opened up the floor for teammates.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.0
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 32.7m -20.4
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 28.9m
19
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Surgical precision from the midrange elevated his overall impact to a robust positive rating. He punished drop coverages with methodical isolation scoring, refusing to force bad looks or settle for contested jumpers. This clinical shot selection maximized his offensive possessions without bleeding value through wasted attempts.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 28.9m -18.0
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 27.7m
10
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Controlled the glass to generate crucial second-chance opportunities, keeping his overall impact firmly in the green. While his scoring volume dipped from his recent averages, his shot selection remained pristine by exclusively taking high-percentage looks in the paint. Anchoring the defensive boards limited Memphis to one-and-done possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 27.7m -17.2
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.8

Smothering point-of-attack defense fueled a spectacular overall impact rating. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions, generating deflections and turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities. Combined with elite hustle metrics, his relentless motor dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +16.1
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 28.2m -17.6
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Floor-spacing gravity and high-energy closeouts kept his net impact comfortably positive. He capitalized on drive-and-kick sequences by confidently launching from deep, punishing defensive rotations. Strong hustle metrics indicate he was actively extending possessions and fighting through screens off the ball.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 25.7m -16.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 19.2m
10
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Errant perimeter shooting and forced drives tanked his overall value during a brief stint on the floor. He repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, short-circuiting offensive momentum. Without any rebounding presence to offset the missed shots, his floor minutes were heavily exploited by the opposition.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 19.2m -12.0
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
0
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.3

Complete offensive invisibility and defensive lapses resulted in a brutal negative impact in limited action. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter after he bricked multiple open looks, destroying the team's spacing. His inability to stay in front of ball-handlers compounded the damage during his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.8
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 10.8m -6.8
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0