GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S GG Jackson 30.2m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

A heavy diet of contested perimeter shots tanked his offensive efficiency and allowed the defense to leak out in transition. Forcing the issue against set defenses completely derailed the team's half-court rhythm. Despite decent defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions drove a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 30.2m -19.1
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

Exceptional hustle (+7.8) and defensive rotations were completely undone by a brutal shooting slump from the perimeter. Opponents aggressively sagged off him, which clogged the driving lanes and stalled the offense. His inability to punish the defense for ignoring him resulted in a heavily negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +7.8
Defense +6.4
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 29.9m -18.8
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
31
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.6

An absolute masterclass in shot selection and offensive execution yielded a monstrous +23.6 impact score. He ruthlessly exploited closeouts and knocked down open looks, punishing the defense every time they lost track of him. Combined with active weak-side defense, this was a flawless two-way clinic.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +32.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +41.8
Avg player in 28.7m -18.2
Impact +23.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 25.3m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Efficient opportunistic scoring and timely cuts to the basket kept the offense humming during his minutes. He didn't force the action, instead letting the game come to him while providing sturdy positional defense. A stabilizing presence whose low-mistake style translated to a modest but clear positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 25.3m -15.9
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Javon Small 25.2m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.8

Excellent decision-making in the pick-and-roll allowed him to generate high-quality looks without turning the ball over. He consistently beat the first line of defense, forcing rotations that led to easy buckets. This surgical offensive approach drove a solid positive rating despite an average defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 25.2m -15.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Spencer 28.9m
11
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+7.2

Elite defensive disruption (+9.1) and flawless floor-spacing completely changed the complexion of the game. He punished defensive breakdowns with timely perimeter shooting while constantly blowing up opponent actions on the other end. Functioned as the perfect connective piece, elevating every lineup he joined.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.1
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 28.9m -18.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Tyler Burton 25.1m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.4

A disastrous shooting night from deep cratered his overall impact and allowed the opponent to pack the paint. He repeatedly settled for contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his missed shots were purely detrimental to the team's success.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 25.1m -15.8
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

An inability to convert in the paint severely damaged his net impact despite adequate defensive effort. He consistently short-armed floaters and layups, bailing out the defense after initially beating his man. Those squandered scoring chances directly fed into a heavily negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 32.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 22.8m -14.4
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Poor finishing around the rim and defensive lapses turned a brief rotational stint into a significant negative. He frequently drove into traffic without an exit plan, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The inability to stay in front of his man compounded his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -41.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.5
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 15.1m -9.6
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Taj Gibson 8.7m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Flawless execution in the dunker spot and smart veteran positioning maximized his brief time on the court. He set bone-crushing screens that freed up the guards, directly contributing to high-efficiency possessions. A masterclass in knowing his role, providing a quick jolt of positive impact without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 8.7m -5.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.5m
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Relentless point-of-attack defense (+8.9) and high-energy hustle plays created a massive two-way footprint. He consistently collapsed the defense with downhill drives, creating easy scoring opportunities in transition. An absolute menace in the passing lanes who dictated the tempo all night.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +8.9
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 39.5m -24.9
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
21
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

Despite solid defensive metrics, a heavy volume of missed perimeter shots dragged his overall impact into the negative. Settling for heavily contested jumpers disrupted the offensive flow and negated his work on the glass. The scoring output was ultimately a mirage built on inefficient volume.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 37.2m -23.5
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Kevin Durant 34.6m
25
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+5.2

Highly efficient perimeter scoring drove a strong positive impact, as he consistently punished defensive rotations. His steady weak-side help (+6.1 defense) and reliable shot selection ensured his offensive volume translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 34.6m -21.7
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 32.9m
14
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.0

Elite defensive positioning (+8.0) and constant activity in the paint fueled a highly positive rating despite a dip in his usual offensive usage. He operated effectively as a high-post hub, generating quality looks for cutters even when his own touches were limited. His impact was defined by making the right read rather than forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.0
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 32.9m -20.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Reed Sheppard 28.0m
15
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.1

Phenomenal defensive instincts (+10.7) and constant off-ball movement completely tilted the game in Houston's favor. Even with a streaky shooting night, his ability to generate deflections and secure loose balls kept the momentum rolling. He functioned as the ultimate connective tissue for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +10.7
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 28.0m -17.8
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
Tari Eason 29.0m
16
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc suppressed what could have been a dominant physical performance. He forced too many early-clock jumpers instead of using his size to attack the rim. The resulting empty possessions slightly outweighed his otherwise solid rebounding and defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 29.0m -18.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Defensive lapses and an inability to contain dribble penetration undermined a highly efficient shooting stint. While he capitalized on spot-up opportunities, giving up straight-line drives negated his offensive contributions. A classic case of giving back on one end what he produced on the other.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.5
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 14.8m -9.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 14.8m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Strong rim protection (+5.3) was offset by a complete lack of offensive involvement during his brief stint. He struggled to establish deep post position, allowing the defense to completely ignore him in the half-court. A neutral outing where his defensive deterrence couldn't fully mask the spacing issues he caused.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 14.8m -9.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

A highly ineffective rotational stint defined by passive offensive play and a failure to impact the glass. He simply existed on the floor without altering the geometry of the defense or disrupting the opponent's sets. The negative rating reflects a player who was purely a spectator during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 9.2m -5.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1