GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S GG Jackson 33.8m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

High-volume, low-efficiency isolation attempts severely disrupted the team's offensive flow. While his on-ball defensive pressure yielded solid returns, the sheer number of forced, contested mid-range jumpers dragged his net impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 33.8m -19.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
17
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

A dip in finishing around the basket turned what could have been a dominant outing into a slightly negative showing. He remained highly active on the glass and maintained solid defensive rotations, but failing to convert on several high-value paint touches limited his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 33.2m -19.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Javon Small 32.6m
11
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Stifling point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's rhythm, but his own offensive execution left much to be desired. Clanking several wide-open perimeter looks neutralized the value he created on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.4
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 32.6m -19.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rayan Rupert 32.2m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Offensive struggles continue to plague his profile, as hesitant decision-making and bricked open looks stalled out multiple possessions. He fought hard through screens to generate excellent defensive metrics, but the total lack of scoring punch ultimately sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 32.2m -18.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 31.2m
24
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Capitalized brilliantly on defensive breakdowns with decisive catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter. This massive scoring spike provided crucial floor spacing, allowing him to post a strong positive impact despite a relatively quiet night in the hustle categories.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 31.2m -18.3
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 28.2m
12
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.7

Steady connective passing and timely off-ball cuts kept the offensive engine humming during his shifts. He managed to stay slightly in the green by hitting just enough momentum-swinging perimeter shots to offset a few defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 28.2m -16.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-6.3

Over-ambitious playmaking attempts likely led to empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent, damaging his net rating. Even though he facilitated well in stretches, a lack of scoring aggression and subpar point-of-attack defense allowed the opposition to capitalize on his mistakes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 27.4m -15.9
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Sizzling spot-up shooting from the corners punished defensive rotations, yet his overall impact slipped into the negative. A complete lack of resistance at the point of attack allowed opponents to blow by him, erasing the value of his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 21.3m -12.3
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 39.7m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.5

Perimeter spacing completely collapsed with a disastrous blanking from beyond the arc. Despite generating excellent defensive metrics and strong hustle numbers, his inability to capitalize on open catch-and-shoot opportunities severely dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 39.7m -23.2
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 36.0m
30
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

A massive scoring surge relative to his recent baseline fueled an elite offensive contribution. Efficient shot creation from the mid-post and perimeter drove the offense, while steady defensive positioning ensured his scoring volume translated into a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 36.0m -21.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 31.9m
35
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+19.6

Absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency, headlined by scorching perimeter shot-making that broke the opponent's defensive scheme. His ability to perfectly balance high-volume scoring with elite point-of-attack defense resulted in a staggering box contribution.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 8/11 (72.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +30.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +38.2
Avg player in 31.9m -18.6
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Scoot Henderson 24.3m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Poor shot selection and forced drives into traffic cratered his offensive value. Although he remained engaged with active hands to generate positive hustle metrics, his severe regression in scoring efficiency bled away crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 24.3m -14.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 12.4m
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

Elite rim protection in a highly condensed window defined this dominant stint. He completely walled off the paint to disrupt opponent drive-and-kick actions, turning a brief rotation into a massive defensive advantage.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 12.4m -7.2
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
20
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+19.7

Unrelenting vertical spacing and elite pick-and-roll finishing completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. He paired this offensive explosion with terrifying weak-side rim protection, anchoring the paint to generate a massive defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +10.5
Raw total +33.5
Avg player in 23.5m -13.8
Impact +19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 22.2m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Relentless motor on loose balls and aggressive rebounding in traffic drove a highly effective glue-guy performance. He didn't demand touches but consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter, turning his sheer energy into a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +6.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 22.2m -13.0
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Offensive invisibility plagued his minutes, as he routinely passed up advantage situations or misfired on the few perimeter looks he took. A fundamentally sound defensive rotation pattern kept him from being a complete liability, but the lack of scoring gravity hurt the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 21.2m -12.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Blake Wesley 15.8m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

High-energy closeouts and loose ball recoveries highlighted a brief but active stint on the floor. While his spot-up shooting was flawless when called upon, a lack of overall offensive involvement kept his net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 15.8m -9.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Complete offensive zero who allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. His usually disruptive perimeter defense failed to materialize enough steals or deflections to justify keeping his stagnant offensive presence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 12.9m -7.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1