GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Cedric Coward 28.3m
15
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Generated solid hustle metrics through active closeouts, but poor defensive positioning off the ball allowed costly backdoor cuts. His inability to stay in front of his man on drives heavily outweighed his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense -1.4
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 28.3m -12.5
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S GG Jackson 25.3m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.5

Dominated his minutes by blending physical drives with confident perimeter execution, punishing defenders who went under screens. His ability to create his own shot late in the clock bailed out several stagnant possessions and drove a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +17.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 25.3m -11.1
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.5

A masterclass in two-way wing play, highlighted by aggressive closeouts that completely neutralized his primary matchup. He continued his recent stretch of hyper-efficient play by exclusively taking high-value shots at the rim and from the corners.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +13.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 24.5m -10.8
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Javon Small 24.5m
13
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.2

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely perimeter shooting and decisive straight-line drives. His disciplined shot selection maximized his efficiency, ensuring every touch resulted in a high-quality look.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 24.5m -10.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cam Spencer 21.5m
10
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.1

Operated as a reliable connector on offense, moving the ball quickly and finding open shooters to keep the defense shifting. While his own scoring volume was low, his processing speed in half-court sets kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 21.5m -9.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Adama Bal 23.5m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Found a sudden offensive rhythm by attacking closeouts, but gave the value right back through poor defensive awareness on the weak side. His scoring burst was entirely neutralized by late rotations that yielded wide-open corner attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 23.5m -10.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Provided excellent point-of-attack defense, fighting through screens to harass ball handlers relentlessly. However, his severe offensive limitations and tendency to clog spacing allowed the opposition to play five-on-four defensively, tanking his overall score.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 23.5m -10.3
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.6

Struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently dying on picks and forcing teammates into difficult rotation scenarios. Those defensive lapses, combined with settling for contested jumpers early in the clock, severely dragged down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.6m -9.9
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.3

Offensive impact plummeted due to a string of forced, contested shots and a complete lack of rhythm. Although he fought hard defensively to generate stops, his inability to execute on the other end created empty possessions that stalled momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -7.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 19.7m -8.6
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
Tyler Burton 18.5m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Fell into a pattern of forcing low-percentage shots early in the clock, disrupting the team's offensive rhythm. While he held his own defensively, his inability to convert in traffic limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 18.5m -8.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Failed to find the flow of the game during his brief stint, getting caught out of position on multiple defensive sequences. A lack of assertiveness on offense made him a non-factor when his team needed a spark.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 8.0m -3.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S OG Anunoby 39.7m
25
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Elite two-way execution defined his night, combining lockdown perimeter defense with highly efficient shot selection. His ability to consistently drain contested catch-and-shoot looks punished the defense for over-helping, driving a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +19.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 39.7m -17.3
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 35.9m
24
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

A high volume of forced isolation attempts and costly live-ball turnovers dragged his net rating into the negative despite a hot shooting night. His struggles to contain dribble penetration on the other end completely neutralized the value of his perimeter scoring.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +13.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 35.9m -15.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jose Alvarado 32.0m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Relentless point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, but erratic shot selection in transition negated those efforts. A tendency to over-penetrate into traffic led to blocked shots and empty trips, suppressing his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 32.0m -13.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
20
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+2.5

High-level playmaking from the post anchored the offense, as he consistently found cutters when double-teamed. However, his overall impact was slightly muted by defensive passivity in drop coverage, allowing guards to easily access the floater range.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 29.5m -12.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 7
S Josh Hart 24.9m
5
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.6

Impact cratered due to a string of poorly timed offensive fouls and live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. While his defensive rotations remained solid, his extreme passivity and sloppy decision-making in half-court sets dragged down the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 24.9m -11.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Smart off-ball movement and decisive shot selection generated steady offensive value within the flow of the scheme. He amplified his impact by fighting over screens defensively, preventing easy catch-and-shoot opportunities for his primary assignment.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 30.6m -13.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 19.2m
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.0

Paced the second unit with exceptional pick-and-roll orchestration, consistently making the right read against aggressive traps. His defensive limitations at the point of attack kept his overall score modest, as bigger guards repeatedly targeted him in isolation.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 19.2m -8.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Capitalized on his limited minutes by rolling hard to the rim and generating extra possessions through relentless offensive rebounding. A few missed defensive rotations in the pick-and-roll were easily offset by his high-energy interior play.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 11.9m -5.1
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Provided an immediate spark with decisive downhill drives that collapsed the defense and created high-quality looks. His willingness to attack mismatches early in the shot clock kept the defense on its heels during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 11.2m -4.9
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Made a brief but highly effective cameo by staying disciplined in his defensive assignments and contesting shots at the rim. He capitalized on broken plays offensively, finishing strong without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 5.2m -2.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0