GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Santi Aldama 35.8m
22
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt and active defensive rotations drove a highly positive two-way performance. He consistently made the right reads as a trailer, punishing late closeouts with decisive action.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 35.8m -22.2
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 32.5m
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

While his offensive aggression surged, defensive bleeding and empty possessions elsewhere dragged his net impact into the red. He struggled to navigate screens on the perimeter, giving back much of the value he created with the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 32.5m -20.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 29.4m
17
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.3

Relentless activity around the basket and high-quality shot selection kept the offense humming. He dominated the dirty work in the paint, securing extra possessions and finishing through contact.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 29.4m -18.1
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Bricked perimeter attempts and a lack of interior dominance limited his effectiveness. Settling for outside looks rather than attacking mismatches inside prevented him from anchoring the offense.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 26.6m -16.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ja Morant 25.2m
21
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite hustle metrics and constant rim pressure offset a highly inefficient shooting night. Even when his floater wasn't falling, his ability to collapse the paint created wide-open looks for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +10.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 25.2m -15.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
Jock Landale 27.3m
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Serviceable activity on the glass was overshadowed by missed bunnies around the rim that stalled offensive momentum. Failing to convert high-percentage looks inside allowed the opponent to leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 27.3m -16.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Spencer 25.3m
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.4

Flawless perimeter execution punished defensive lapses and single-handedly swung the momentum. Operating as a lethal release valve, he capitalized on every breakdown with perfect shooting mechanics to break the opposing zone.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 6/6 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 145.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 25.3m -15.7
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Clanking open spot-up looks erased the value of his typically solid point-of-attack defense. His inability to punish double-teams on the star players allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 22.5m -13.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

An offensive black hole whose inability to convert any looks completely derailed the second unit's flow. His forced attempts early in the shot clock led directly to opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 15.4m -9.5
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 35.6m
26
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.9

A heavy volume of clanked jumpers dragged down his overall rating despite decent defensive metrics. His insistence on forcing contested looks against set defenses proved costly.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 35.6m -22.0
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Keyonte George 33.8m
39
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+15.8

Scorching perimeter execution and elite decision-making in the pick-and-roll fueled a massive offensive surge. He consistently punished drop coverage, dictating the pace of the game from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +32.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +36.7
Avg player in 33.8m -20.9
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ace Bailey 31.4m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Poor shot selection and a string of forced jumpers completely derailed his offensive rhythm. The stark regression from his recent scoring tear left the second unit searching for answers.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 31.4m -19.5
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jusuf Nurkić 27.5m
13
pts
17
reb
7
ast
Impact
+19.1

Elite defensive anchoring and highly efficient finishing in the paint drove a massive positive rating. He dominated his matchup physically, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass to spark transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +12.1
Raw total +36.1
Avg player in 27.5m -17.0
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Svi Mykhailiuk 23.7m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Impact suffered due to a sharp drop in offensive aggression compared to his recent hot streak. Settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.7m -14.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-14.4

A passive approach and inability to generate rim pressure tanked his overall value. Failing to collapse the defense meant the offense stagnated whenever he initiated sets.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 24.0m -14.9
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevin Love 20.4m
20
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.5

A massive resurgence from the perimeter stretched the defense to its breaking point. His ability to trail the play and drain transition triples completely altered the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.7
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 20.4m -12.7
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Snapped a hyper-efficient hot streak with a tentative showing that offered zero interior gravity. His reluctance to challenge defenders in the paint allowed the opposition to stay glued to shooters.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 18.6m -11.6
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Timely shot-making from beyond the arc provided a steadying secondary punch despite a drop in overall volume. He capitalized on defensive rotations, knocking down open looks to keep the spacing intact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 17.5m -10.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

A brief, empty stint highlighted by defensive lapses rendered him a net negative. He failed to make any tangible impact during his short run, struggling to stay in front of his primary assignment.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 7.5m -4.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0