GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Forced the issue from beyond the arc, leading to long rebounds that fueled the opponent's fast break. Despite showing great lateral quickness defending on the ball, his offensive tunnel vision dragged down his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 30.9m -15.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

An absolute menace in weak-side rim protection, erasing multiple shots and altering several others to anchor the defense. He capitalized on the other end by finding soft spots in the zone for easy dump-offs, maximizing his two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.3
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 28.6m -14.7
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Javon Small 26.5m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Pushed the pace effectively and hunted high-percentage looks in the paint to keep the offense humming. His impact was capped slightly by a tendency to get lost on back-door cuts, neutralizing some of his offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 26.5m -13.6
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 24.9m
16
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.3

Orchestrated the offense with precision, consistently manipulating pick-and-roll coverages to create open looks for teammates. However, his heavy reliance on contested floaters dragged down his scoring efficiency and limited his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 24.9m -13.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 20.2m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Excellent defensive anticipation and active hands in the passing lanes drove a quietly effective shift. He routinely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow by fighting through off-ball screens and blowing up set plays.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 20.2m -10.4
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Burton 32.5m
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Caught fire from the perimeter, utilizing off-ball screens perfectly to find daylight against trailing defenders. His defensive awareness lagged behind his scoring, as he repeatedly gave up middle penetration that compromised the team's shell.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 32.5m -16.8
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Bogged down the half-court offense by overdribbling and settling for heavily contested jumpers late in the clock. While he fought hard over screens defensively, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips severely damaged his net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 27.2m -13.9
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.6

A complete inability to find the range derailed his stint, as he repeatedly bricked open catch-and-shoot opportunities. He tried to compensate with aggressive closeouts on defense, but the offensive black hole was too deep to climb out of.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 26.5m -13.6
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Spencer 22.7m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.6

Punished defensive lapses with lethal spot-up shooting, forcing the opponent to abandon their drop coverage. He also made smart, disciplined rotations on the back end to prevent easy layups, rounding out a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 22.7m -11.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 38.1m
30
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.3

High-usage creation kept the offense afloat, though a heavy dose of isolation mid-range attempts limited his overall efficiency. His ability to collapse the defense on drives was the engine for the starting unit, offsetting some defensive lapses in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 38.1m -19.7
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derrick White 35.8m
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless screen navigation kept his impact near neutral despite a frigid night from the perimeter. The missed spot-up opportunities were costly, but his ability to blow up dribble handoffs prevented the opponent from capitalizing.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.0
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 35.8m -18.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jayson Tatum 30.9m
13
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.9

A brutal shooting night defined by settling for contested pull-ups dragged his overall impact into the abyss. Though he remained engaged defensively as a weak-side helper, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 30.9m -15.8
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sam Hauser 20.6m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Total lack of offensive production cratered his impact, as he passed up open looks and failed to punish closeouts. Even with solid positional defense and active hands creating loose ball recoveries, the scoring void was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 20.6m -10.6
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 17.8m
12
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Perfect execution around the rim and dominant screen-setting fueled a highly efficient offensive stint. He consistently sealed his man deep in the paint, ensuring high-value touches that maximized his floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 17.8m -9.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Poor shot selection early in the shot clock led to empty possessions that actively hurt the team's transition defense. While he found some rhythm in the second half, the sheer number of forced perimeter looks outweighed his secondary playmaking.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 31.7m -16.3
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Luka Garza 27.3m
22
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.3

Absolutely carved up the interior defense with elite positioning and soft touch on post hooks. He paired this interior dominance with timely vertical contests at the rim, resulting in a massively positive two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 27.3m -14.0
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Made his mark entirely through high-motor plays, generating crucial extra possessions via offensive tap-outs and diving for loose balls. He didn't need offensive volume to be effective, thriving instead as a connective piece who executed defensive rotations flawlessly.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 3.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 23.2m -12.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Flashed efficient scoring when his number was called, but struggled to make an imprint off the ball. A lack of defensive rebounding urgency and late closeouts on the perimeter kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 14.6m -7.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Only saw the floor for a brief situational substitution at the end of a quarter. Did not log enough court time to register any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -300.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0