GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jaylen Wells 26.3m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.2

Bricked perimeter shots and porous point-of-attack defense fueled a disastrous -13.2 total impact. His inability to stay in front of his man (-1.6 Def) forced defensive rotations that led to easy opponent scores. A pattern of blown assignments and wasted offensive possessions made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 26.3m -14.6
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 24.5m
23
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.6

Applying constant offensive pressure and orchestrating the attack helped him overcome a high volume of missed shots. His playmaking gravity and opportunistic defense (+3.8 Def) more than compensated for the streaky shooting splits. Aggressive downhill drives broke his recent mold and kept the opponent scrambling in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 24.5m -13.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Underlying systemic issues during his minutes dragged his total impact into the red despite efficient scoring. He likely suffered from poor lineup combinations or transition defensive breakdowns that aren't captured by his solid individual shooting. A pattern of bleeding points on the margins ultimately undid his positive box metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 23.4m -13.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Sustaining his recent hot streak with impeccable shot selection, he punished defensive lapses with high-percentage finishes around the basket. While his offensive efficiency drove a strong box score, a relatively quiet defensive presence (+0.2 Def) muted his overall total impact. He maximized his touches but didn't quite tilt the broader flow of the game defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 22.5m -12.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S GG Jackson 22.1m
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Two-way versatility was the catalyst for a strong positive showing, anchored by an elite +8.4 defensive impact. He consistently punished closeouts with decisive shot selection, converting efficiently on the offensive end. Blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions defined a highly productive rotation shift.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 22.1m -12.2
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.3

Hunting high-value looks and locking down the paint (+8.5 Def) resulted in a towering +17.3 impact that completely erased his recent shooting woes. He dictated the terms of engagement by erasing multiple attempts at the rim. This sudden explosion of two-way dominance defined an absolute masterclass in efficiency and defensive anchoring.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.5
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 26.2m -14.5
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

Culminating in a highly damaging rotation shift, a severe lack of offensive assertiveness and defensive lapses (-0.5 Def) plagued his minutes. Floating on the perimeter without putting pressure on the rim allowed the defense to rest and clog the driving lanes. The drastic reduction in scoring punch from his recent averages left the second unit devoid of necessary firepower.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 24.7m -13.8
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Tanking his offensive value, a heavy reliance on contested, low-percentage jumpers dragged down his total impact. Even though he provided sturdy resistance on the other end (+4.1 Def), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. A pattern of inefficient chucking ultimately negated his solid defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 21.8m -12.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.1

Offensive stagnation and poor shot quality completely derailed his stint, resulting in a brutal -12.1 total impact. While he flashed some playmaking and hustle (+2.4), his inability to threaten the defense allowed opponents to aggressively trap other ball-handlers. This glaring weak link in the half-court offense created a sharp drop-off in scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 18.2m -10.2
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Cam Spencer 15.6m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.2

Lethal perimeter execution drove a strong positive impact despite some defensive shortcomings. Capitalizing on defensive miscommunications to find open space provided a crucial scoring punch in limited minutes. The highly efficient shot profile easily outweighed the minor points surrendered on his defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 15.6m -8.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Javon Small 14.8m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

Leveraging elite effort to post a positive impact, he proved that you don't need to shoot to influence winning. Tenacious point-of-attack defense (+4.5 Def) and relentless loose-ball recovery (+4.8 Hustle) completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. Embracing a pure glue-guy role masked his lack of offensive output with game-changing energy.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 14.8m -8.1
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Capitalizing on high-quality looks around the rim generated a highly efficient offensive output that broke a severe shooting slump. His active off-ball cutting fueled a strong +4.2 hustle score, creating easy finishing opportunities that bypassed the half-court defense. This sudden burst of mistake-free execution defined a robust positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 30.5m -17.0
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 27.9m
28
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.3

Smothering wing defense (+8.7 Def) and pristine shot selection drove a massive positive impact. He systematically dismantled his primary matchups by hunting high-value mid-range looks and avoiding costly turnovers. This sustained pattern of two-way dominance completely dictated the tempo during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.7
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 27.9m -15.6
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 26.3m
21
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.7

High-volume, low-efficiency shot selection dragged down his overall net impact, as a heavy diet of missed jumpers gave crucial possessions back to the opponent. His inability to contain dribble penetration (-0.4 Def) compounded the damage from his streaky perimeter execution. A clear pattern of empty offensive trips ultimately fueled opponent transition attacks and resulted in a negative return.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 26.3m -14.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Dunn 21.8m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

Offensive invisibility completely tanked his overall impact despite commendable effort on the other end. While he applied strong point-of-attack pressure (+4.5 Def) and scrapped for loose balls (+2.8 Hustle), the complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers. This spacing bottleneck created a severe structural disadvantage for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 21.8m -12.3
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brook Lopez 12.4m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Disjointed floor spacing and missed perimeter looks resulted in a negative total impact during limited action. Unable to anchor the paint effectively (+0.3 Def), a pattern of passive positioning failed to deter interior drives. The lack of offensive gravity and defensive deterrence marked a noticeable drop-off from his recent steady play.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 12.4m -6.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

A heavy diet of missed perimeter shots limited what could have been a dominant showing. He salvaged a neutral overall impact by crashing the glass effectively and providing stout resistance on the wing (+4.8 Def) against larger matchups. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions ultimately offset his defensive and rebounding contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 34.8m -19.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

Generating points efficiently through foul-drawing couldn't save his overall impact from cratering to -8.7 due to severe defensive lapses. The negative total indicates he likely bled points in transition or suffered from costly live-ball turnovers that fueled the opponent's fast break. A pattern of structural breakdowns during his shifts completely masked his low-volume shooting efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 33.2m -18.5
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Relentless interior activity drove a highly positive impact, highlighted by a massive +7.6 defensive score that completely sealed off the paint. He altered shots at the rim and secured extra possessions through sheer effort (+4.1 Hustle), continuing a dominant streak of highly efficient finishing. This pattern of vertical spacing and rim protection anchored the frontcourt and dictated the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.6
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 24.9m -13.9
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 19.2m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Regression from his recent scorching efficiency limited his overall effectiveness in this rotation spot. While he connected on his few attempts, a lack of overall aggression and volume prevented him from tilting the floor or drawing defensive attention. A passive offensive approach negated his solid hustle (+2.1) and led to a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 19.2m -10.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Failing to leave any imprint on the game's flow, this brief stint yielded a negative return. With zero offensive attempts and marginal defensive resistance, his minutes were essentially empty calories that failed to disrupt the opponent's rhythm. A pattern of passive floating prevented him from breaking out of his ongoing slump.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -122.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Brief defensive engagement allowed him to squeeze out a slightly positive impact in a fleeting appearance. A quick missed shot was offset by disciplined positioning (+1.4 Def) during a short stint at the end of the rotation. He essentially served as a placeholder without disrupting the team's overall rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Registering a slightly negative impact during a negligible stretch of garbage time, he barely saw the floor. With zeroes across the board in all hustle and defensive metrics, his presence was entirely inconsequential to the game's outcome. The brief cameo offered no opportunity to alter the team's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0