Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead MEM lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MEM 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Jerome Hard 6/15 +0.9
Jackson 9/14 +3.4
Clayton Jr. Hard 4/13 -1.6
Burton 6/11 +1.0
Hendricks Hard 3/9 -0.5
Prosper Open 2/7 -5.2
Jarreau 3/6 +0.8
Wells Hard 2/4 +0.2
Rupert Open 0/3 -3.9
Gibson Open 0/1 -1.4

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Alexander-Walker 8/11 +7.9
McCollum 5/11 +1.1
Landale 5/10 -1.1
Kispert 4/9 +0.9
Daniels 5/8 +2.8
Risacher 4/8 -0.5
Kuminga Hard 5/7 +6.5
Okongwu 5/7 +1.6
Houstan Hard 2/5 +0.4
Wallace Hard 3/4 +4.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MEM
ATL
35/83 Field Goals 49/92
42.2% Field Goal % 53.3%
14/43 3-Pointers 25/54
32.6% 3-Point % 46.3%
23/26 Free Throws 23/25
88.5% Free Throw % 92.0%
56.6% True Shooting % 70.9%
46 Total Rebounds 50
6 Offensive 12
28 Defensive 32
20 Assists 37
0.87 Assist/TO Ratio 3.36
21 Turnovers 11
9 Steals 12
4 Blocks 6
20 Fouls 19
40 Points in Paint 48
20 Fast Break Pts 26
12 Points off TOs 39
11 Second Chance Pts 19
52 Bench Points 74
5 Largest Lead 44
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
26 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 25.7 MIN
+28.08
2
Tyler Burton
20 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 28.5 MIN
+20.99
3
Jonathan Kuminga
16 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 19.7 MIN
+20.52
4
Onyeka Okongwu
16 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 20.1 MIN
+18.73
5
CJ McCollum
15 PTS · 4 REB · 9 AST · 22.0 MIN
+16.36
6
Zaccharie Risacher
11 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 26.1 MIN
+16.16
7
GG Jackson
26 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 30.2 MIN
+14.16
8
Dyson Daniels
12 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 24.1 MIN
+13.77
9
Ty Jerome
17 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 23.9 MIN
+11.23
10
Olivier-Maxence Prosper
8 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 25.1 MIN
+9.33
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:21 TEAM defensive REBOUND 107–146
Q4 0:23 MISS G. Jackson 25' step back 3PT 107–146
Q4 0:29 W. Clayton Jr. REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 107–146
Q4 0:35 MISS C. Koloko 25' 3PT 107–146
Q4 0:49 Z. Risacher REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 107–146
Q4 0:52 MISS W. Clayton Jr. running 3PT 107–146
Q4 0:56 T. Burton REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 107–146
Q4 0:58 MISS B. Hield 24' 3PT 107–146
Q4 1:09 G. Jackson 26' 3PT pullup (26 PTS) (W. Clayton Jr. 6 AST) 107–146
Q4 1:17 K. Wallace 25' 3PT (9 PTS) (C. Koloko 1 AST) 104–146
Q4 1:36 T. Burton 25' 3PT running (20 PTS) (R. Rupert 2 AST) 104–143
Q4 1:39 R. Rupert REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 101–143
Q4 1:43 MISS C. Koloko 24' 3PT 101–143
Q4 1:54 G. Jackson reverse Layup (23 PTS) (W. Clayton Jr. 5 AST) 101–143
Q4 1:56 TEAM offensive REBOUND 99–143

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
26
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.6

Blistering perimeter shot-making and impeccable decision-making in the pick-and-roll completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. He recognized drop coverages instantly, punishing retreating bigs with pull-up jumpers before they could contest. This offensive masterclass dictated the terms of engagement for his entire stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +50.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +23.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 24.1m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and disruptive activity in the passing lanes fueled a highly productive shift. He turned deflections into immediate transition opportunities, completely changing the game's momentum during the middle quarters. Smart, decisive cuts to the basket further maximized his value without requiring heavy usage.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mouhamed Gueye 22.4m
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Outstanding rim protection and relentless energy on the glass were ultimately undone by severe offensive limitations. He clogged the paint and struggled to process double-teams, leading to stalled possessions and wasted shot clocks. The defensive value was undeniable, but his inability to finish around the basket dragged his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 22.0m
15
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.8

Masterful manipulation of defensive rotations allowed him to dissect the opposition as a primary facilitator. He repeatedly drew two to the ball off high ball-screens, delivering pinpoint skip passes to open shooters on the weak side. Hitting timely perimeter shots kept defenders honest, compounding his playmaking gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +62.8
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 20.1m
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.0

Dominating the interior with decisive rim-runs and physical screen-setting created massive structural advantages for the offense. He consistently sealed his man early in the shot clock, providing an easy release valve against perimeter pressure. His ability to switch onto smaller guards defensively without conceding driving angles cemented a stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +57.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.5

Suffocating wing defense and flawless weak-side rotations were the primary engines behind his highly positive impact. He completely erased his primary matchup from the game plan, denying catches and fighting through screens with relentless physicality. Capitalizing on a few timely cuts to the basket provided just enough offensive value to round out a superb two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Jock Landale 20.6m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Drifting to the perimeter and settling for outside looks neutralized his size advantage and hurt the team's offensive rebounding presence. Opposing bigs easily boxed him out when he lingered around the arc, limiting crucial second-chance opportunities. While his drop-coverage defense was passable, his failure to punish switches in the post left significant value on the table.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.3

Explosive downhill drives and surprising perimeter accuracy made him an impossible cover for opposing forwards. He punished closeouts with violent attacks to the rim, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble in recovery. This aggressive, decisive offensive approach perfectly complemented his switchable, high-energy defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Constant off-ball movement and the threat of his perimeter stroke bent the defense and created crucial driving lanes for teammates. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications during transition, sprinting to the corners for quick-trigger releases. Though occasionally targeted on the other end, his spacing gravity kept his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 15.5m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.8

Stagnating the offense with excessive dribbling and late-clock indecision severely hampered the second unit's rhythm. He struggled to create separation against physical point-of-attack defenders, leading to forced, off-balance attempts at the end of possessions. Despite occasional flashes of defensive grit, his inability to initiate sets cleanly proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A sudden barrage of perimeter shot-making provided a massive jolt of energy during a brief rotation stint. He confidently stepped into transition looks, punishing the defense for failing to match up early in the clock. This quick-strike scoring burst easily outweighed a few minor defensive missteps.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Stepping out of his comfort zone to hoist perimeter shots derailed offensive possessions and minimized his interior strengths. He failed to establish a physical presence in the paint, allowing smaller opponents to secure contested rebounds. The brief stint was largely defined by a lack of offensive identity and missed opportunities around the basket.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Firing away without hesitation against scrambled closeouts allowed him to maximize his limited minutes. He maintained excellent spacing discipline, staying anchored in the corners to stretch the defense to its breaking point. Solid positional awareness on the defensive end ensured he didn't give back the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Extreme perimeter gravity forced defenders to face-guard him constantly, opening up massive cutting lanes for the rest of the unit. Even without connecting from the field, his mere presence warped the opponent's defensive shell and simplified the half-court offense. Smart, veteran positioning on the defensive end further solidified a quietly effective cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S GG Jackson 30.2m
26
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.4

High-volume scoring output masked underlying structural issues that kept his overall impact in the red. He hunted his own offense effectively but frequently fell asleep on weak-side defensive rotations, giving back almost everything he generated. The scoring surge looked great in isolation but failed to move the needle in the broader context of the game.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Rayan Rupert 30.1m
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-22.0

A complete lack of offensive gravity torpedoed his overall impact despite logging an extended run. Defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes for his teammates and stalled the half-court offense. Even a few decent hustle plays couldn't mask the damage of being an absolute non-threat.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring -2.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Relentless energy and lockdown perimeter defense kept his overall impact positive despite a brutal shooting night. He completely abandoned his recent offensive rhythm but compensated by generating massive value through deflections and contested shots. His ability to anchor the defensive shell proved far more valuable than his missing scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ty Jerome 23.9m
17
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Inefficient shot selection nearly erased the value of his aggressive scoring mentality. He forced several contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock, disrupting the team's offensive rhythm and sparking opponent transition runs. However, solid point-of-attack defense and timely closeouts managed to keep his final ledger barely above water.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 20.3m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.0

Floating through his shift without leaving a tangible imprint on the game dragged his overall rating into the negative. He passed up open looks within the flow of the offense, stalling possessions and forcing teammates into late-clock bailout situations. A few decent defensive possessions couldn't make up for his extreme passivity.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -43.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyler Burton 28.5m
20
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+21.0

Punishing mismatches in the paint and finishing through contact drove a highly efficient and impactful performance. He consistently established deep post position, forcing the defense into rotation and opening up the floor for secondary actions. Combined with excellent positional awareness on the defensive glass, he controlled the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.9

A heavy diet of forced, contested perimeter shots tanked his overall efficiency and hurt the team's transition defense. He repeatedly hijacked possessions with early-clock bombs, leading to long rebounds and easy fast-break opportunities for the opponent. Despite showing some grit on the defensive end, his erratic shot selection was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Settling exclusively for perimeter looks severely limited his offensive ceiling and dragged down his overall impact. Defenses quickly realized he had no intention of attacking closeouts, allowing them to crowd his airspace and neutralize his spacing gravity. While his weak-side rim protection was adequate, his one-dimensional shot profile hurt the team's half-court dynamics.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -51.8
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.9

Sloppy ball security and mistimed passes severely damaged his team's offensive flow, leading to a steep negative impact. He repeatedly forced the ball into tight windows against set defenses, sparking opponent momentum swings that erased his own scoring contributions. The resulting transition points allowed the opposition to build a lead during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Taj Gibson 5.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

A brief, ineffective stint was characterized by slow defensive rotations and an inability to anchor the paint. Opponents immediately targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, exploiting his lack of lateral quickness to generate wide-open looks. He simply couldn't keep pace with the game's tempo during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -98.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0