GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Javon Small 27.6m
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Steady ball-handling and timely perimeter shooting kept his impact firmly in the green. He systematically picked apart drop coverage during the second half, punishing the big man for sagging too far into the lane. Avoiding costly fouls allowed him to stay aggressive defensively without compromising his court time.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 27.6m -17.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 26.9m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Incredible hustle metrics were entirely undone by erratic offensive execution. He derailed multiple fast breaks by forcing contested transition layups instead of pulling the ball out to reset. All the extra possessions he generated through sheer effort were squandered by poor decision-making with the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +6.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 26.9m -17.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S GG Jackson 25.9m
24
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Leveraged his physical advantages to overwhelm smaller defenders in the mid-post. A dominant first-quarter stretch of isolation scoring set the tone and forced the defense into early rotations. His ability to finish through contact masked some occasional defensive lapses on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 25.9m -16.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Ty Jerome 24.0m
22
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.9

Offensive orchestration was the primary driver of his positive value. He engineered a flawless stretch of pick-and-pop possessions that completely scrambled the opponent's defensive shell. Taking care of the basketball and generating high-quality looks for others easily offset his modest defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 24.0m -15.2
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

A drastic drop in offensive confidence cratered his overall rating. He passed up multiple open corner looks, stalling the offensive flow and allowing the defense to pack the paint against his teammates. This hesitation completely neutralized the momentum he had built over his recent hot streak.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 20.4m -13.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.7

A massive defensive footprint was the engine behind his highly effective outing. He completely erased his primary matchup through relentless ball denial and timely weak-side rotations. Coupling that defensive dominance with decisive finishing around the rim resulted in a massive leap in overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.6
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 27.6m -17.5
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Rayan Rupert 23.9m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive versatility couldn't save his rating from the damage of poor shot selection. He consistently settled for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock, bailing out the opposing defense. Those empty trips down the floor negated the positive equity he built through active passing lane disruption.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 23.9m -15.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.4

A disastrous shooting performance completely tanked his overall impact score. He repeatedly forced heavily contested floaters over taller defenders, bleeding away possessions and letting the opponent dictate the tempo. Despite showing some life in the hustle metrics, his inability to generate clean looks severely handicapped the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense -0.6
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 22.2m -14.1
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 21.1m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

Lack of physical engagement on the perimeter led to a steep negative rating. He was consistently targeted on switches during the fourth quarter, giving up straight-line drives that collapsed the defense. His passive approach on offense offered no counterweight to the damage he sustained on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -62.4
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 21.1m -13.4
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

Over-dribbling and forced entry passes severely hampered his offensive flow. He got caught in the air multiple times during the third quarter, leading to live-ball turnovers that sparked opponent fast breaks. The defensive effort was adequate, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his score into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 20.4m -13.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
GSW Golden State Warriors
19
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite active hustle metrics, his overall value slipped into the red due to forced passes into traffic. A frustrating stretch of second-half turnovers short-circuited the offense and erased the goodwill from his rebounding effort. He struggled to read the weak-side help, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 30.6m -19.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Will Richard 29.6m
21
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.6

An absolute eruption in offensive confidence fueled a dominant overall rating. He punished defensive lapses in transition all night, turning live-ball steals directly into fast-break momentum. His ability to suddenly break down his primary matchup off the dribble completely warped the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.7
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 29.6m -18.8
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moses Moody 27.6m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Impact flatlined right at neutral as his recent offensive aggression completely evaporated. Settling for perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint neutralized his usual rim pressure and dragged down his overall efficiency. His solid rotational defense kept him from slipping into the negatives.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 27.6m -17.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Al Horford 26.7m
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.0

Value was perfectly balanced between veteran defensive positioning and empty offensive possessions. A pattern of bricked trailing three-pointers offset the equity he built through excellent pick-and-roll containment against quicker guards. He stabilized the floor defensively but gave it all back with stagnant shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 26.7m -17.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Gui Santos 25.6m
17
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.0

Elite defensive positioning and relentless off-ball movement drove a massive positive score. He consistently beat closeouts during a crucial third-quarter stretch, extending his streak of highly efficient finishing at the rim. Those timely cuts and defensive stops compounded into a game-changing presence.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +8.3
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 25.6m -16.3
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Pat Spencer 32.4m
12
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-8.1

Playmaking volume couldn't mask the damage done by loose ball security and poor shot quality. He repeatedly drove into crowded driving lanes during the second quarter, resulting in deflections and wasted possessions. The negative swing from those dead-end drives completely outweighed his passing contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 32.4m -20.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Defensive disruption remains his calling card, generating significant value through relentless point-of-attack pressure. He capitalized on a series of broken plays in the dunker spot, converting chaotic sequences into high-percentage looks. That combination of perimeter harassment and opportunistic finishing drove a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 79.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 28.4m -18.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Quinten Post 21.3m
12
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Anchored a positive impact entirely through elite rim protection and verticality. He completely shut off the paint during his second-half rotation, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. While his offensive role was limited, his massive defensive footprint dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.5
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 21.3m -13.5
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Malevy Leons 17.9m
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Capitalized on his minutes by making incredibly decisive reads on both ends of the floor. A crucial pattern of weak-side blocks and immediate rim runs showcased a high-revving two-way motor. He rarely held the ball, ensuring the offense kept flowing while he mopped up the glass.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 17.9m -11.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1