GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Javon Small 30.3m
8
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.7

Passive offensive decision-making and a string of poorly timed live-ball turnovers dragged his net rating into the negative. While he applied excellent pressure at the point of attack, his reluctance to shoot allowed the defense to sag off and clog the passing lanes. He effectively played his own team into a 4-on-5 situation on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 30.3m -15.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S GG Jackson 29.9m
20
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Two-way versatility shined through as he seamlessly switched across multiple positions to stifle perimeter drives. Offensively, his willingness to attack closeouts and draw contact kept the defense scrambling. This was a highly functional performance anchored by disciplined closeouts and aggressive downhill slashes.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 29.9m -15.4
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.3

Impact plummeted to a catastrophic low due to a complete inability to connect from the perimeter, which allowed his defender to freely roam the paint. His offensive struggles bled into his transition defense, where he frequently failed to match up in time. Missing wide-open corner looks completely derailed the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -55.0
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense -7.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total -4.1
Avg player in 27.7m -14.2
Impact -18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 26.8m
12
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless energy on the offensive glass and diving for loose balls generated crucial extra possessions that buoyed his impact score. He thrived in the chaotic moments of the game, turning broken plays into high-percentage looks. That sheer motor compensated for a few defensive miscommunications on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +6.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 26.8m -13.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

High-end shot-making masked a tendency to get lost on off-ball defensive assignments, resulting in a surprisingly muted net impact. He was lethal when spotting up from the corners, punishing late rotations with consistent efficiency. However, late closeouts and poor rebounding positioning prevented him from dominating the overall margin.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 25.2m -13.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 29.5m
1
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-14.0

A complete offensive blackout crippled his impact, as defenders entirely ignored him to trap the primary ball handlers. He compounded his shooting woes by over-passing into contested areas, racking up deflections for the other team. Without the threat of a jumper, his playmaking value evaporated into a massive crater.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 7.8%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 29.5m -15.3
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Burton 23.8m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Bricking multiple early-clock jumpers short-circuited the offense and fueled the opponent's transition game. He tried to compensate with active hands in the passing lanes, but the damage from his wasted possessions was already done. Opponents successfully targeted his heavy closeouts to generate blow-by drives.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 23.8m -12.3
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

Poor spatial awareness on the offensive end negated his gritty perimeter defense, leading to a frustrating negative net impact. He repeatedly drove into crowded paints without a kick-out plan, resulting in empty trips that stalled momentum. His defensive footwork was fundamentally sound, but he gave those points right back with careless offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 21.7m -11.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Smothering on-ball defense salvaged a wildly inefficient chucking display from beyond the arc. He derailed the opponent's primary actions by fighting through screens with elite physicality, forcing multiple shot-clock violations. If he had reined in the erratic perimeter attempts, his overall impact would have been monstrous rather than just moderately positive.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 55.9%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 15.0m -7.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Taj Gibson 10.0m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Veteran savvy defined this highly efficient cameo, as he utilized textbook box-outs and hard screens to generate a stellar impact. He punished defensive lapses with decisive, in-rhythm finishes around the basket without demanding post-ups. His hustle rating in limited minutes showcased a masterclass in positional awareness and timely rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 10.0m -5.2
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
19
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+32.8

Absolute dominance as a rim deterrent drove a staggering net impact, completely erasing the opponent's interior attack. Even with his scoring volume dipping below his recent average, his elite hustle score reflects relentless activity on 50/50 balls and weak-side blocks. He dictated the terms of engagement on both ends without needing to force offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +57.6
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +8.2
Defense +19.5
Raw total +46.6
Avg player in 26.9m -13.8
Impact +32.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 30.4%
STL 3
BLK 7
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 26.5m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.4

Elite shot selection fueled a massive positive impact, as he relentlessly punished drop coverage with in-rhythm pull-ups. His offensive surge was complemented by active hands in the passing lanes to disrupt opposing sets. The combination of high-value perimeter looks and disruptive point-of-attack defense made him the primary catalyst.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 26.5m -13.6
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 25.9m
15
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.4

Playmaking volume couldn't salvage a steep negative impact dragged down by defensive lapses and poor transition awareness. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, neutralizing the value of his high-percentage interior finishes. A lack of secondary effort allowed the opposition to capitalize on his side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +60.7
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 25.9m -13.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Defensive rotations kept his overall impact in the green despite a streaky shooting night from the perimeter. He consistently chased shooters off the line, contributing to a highly positive defensive rating. However, settling for heavily contested looks late in the shot clock capped his offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 25.5m -13.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dylan Harper 22.9m
10
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.0

Sustained offensive rhythm and smart spatial awareness kept his net impact firmly positive. He excelled at attacking closeouts to collapse the defense, pairing that with disciplined closeouts of his own. His consistency in finding the right read rather than forcing the issue remains a stabilizing force.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 22.9m -12.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

A barrage of forced, early-clock perimeter misses tanked his offensive efficiency and allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. His inability to stay in front of quicker wings resulted in a negative defensive grade, compounding the damage of his erratic shot selection. Bullying his way to the rim yielded some success, but not enough to offset the wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 22.4m -11.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Floor-spacing gravity opened up the paint for others, though a lack of peripheral activity muted his overall impact. He capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities when left alone on the perimeter, punishing defensive over-helps. Still, his minimal engagement on loose balls and secondary rotations kept him hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.0m -11.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite showing flashes of energetic weak-side help, offensive hesitancy and poor spacing dragged his net impact into the red. He clogged the driving lanes by floating into occupied zones, stalling out half-court sets. The raw physical tools are evident, but the lack of systemic awareness proved costly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 15.4m -7.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Stagnant ball movement and an inability to penetrate the first line of defense resulted in a sluggish negative impact score. Opposing guards easily navigated his ball pressure, neutralizing his defensive value while ignoring him on the perimeter. He struggled to initiate any meaningful offensive flow during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 15.2m -7.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided a brief but stable interior presence, using his frame to seal off driving lanes and secure contested defensive boards. His positive defensive metric reflects disciplined verticality at the rim during his short stint. He didn't demand the ball, focusing entirely on executing screening angles and maintaining structural integrity.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 10.3m -5.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.1

Flawless execution in pick-and-pop scenarios immediately tilted the floor, yielding a massive impact in under ten minutes. His ability to drag the opposing center out of the paint created gaping holes for cutters to exploit. It was a masterclass in maximizing limited minutes through elite offensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.7%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 8.9m -4.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Offensive zero-gravity severely handicapped the second unit, allowing the defense to freely double-team the ball handlers. He was consistently out of position on pick-and-roll coverages, leading to a quick deficit. Without the burst to alter shots at the rim, his presence on the floor was a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 8.9m -4.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

A disastrous stint defined by forced, off-balance perimeter chucking that triggered multiple opponent run-outs. He offered zero resistance at the point of attack and completely mailed it in on loose balls. The combination of empty offensive possessions and defensive apathy cratered his impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense -2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 8.9m -4.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1