MEM

2025-26 Season

TAYLOR HENDRICKS

Memphis Grizzlies | Forward | 6-9
Taylor Hendricks
7.4PPG
3.7RPG
0.9APG
19.0MPG
-3.5 Impact

Hendricks produces at an below average rate for a 19-minute workload.

·
Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-3.5
Scoring +6.4
Points Scored 7.4 PPG = +7.4
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -2.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.7
Creation +0.3
Assists & Self-Creation 0.9 AST/g + self-creation = +0.3
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 0.8/g (live + dead blend) = -1.9
Defense +0.7
Steals 0.8/g = +1.8
Blocks 0.5/g = +0.5
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.6
Hustle & Effort +3.2
Rebounds 3.7 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +1.1
Contested Shots 3.7/g = +0.7
Deflections 1.5/g = +1.0
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.2/g = +0.1
Screen Assists 1.1/g = +0.3
Raw Impact +8.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −12.2
Net Impact
-3.5
28th pctl vs Forwards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 235 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 41th
7.9 PPG
Efficiency 57th
57.3% TS
Playmaking 19th
1.0 APG
Rebounding 47th
4.0 RPG
Defense 97th
+13.5/g
Hustle 47th
+11.7/g
Creation 16th
+1.49/g
Shot Making 43th
+5.34/g
TO Discipline 55th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Taylor Hendricks’s opening stretch of the 2025-26 campaign was defined by maddening volatility, oscillating wildly between total offensive invisibility and sudden scoring outbursts. When his outside shot was falling, he looked like a genuine difference-maker. He dropped 20 points on 6-for-10 shooting on 12/08 vs OKC, generating a massive +16.1 Impact score by stretching the floor and taking smart, decisive shots. Yet, those peaks were frequently swallowed by stretches of extreme passivity. During his 12/19 vs LAL appearance, he logged 23 minutes but attempted just a single field goal, resulting in a brutal -13.7 Impact score because his complete lack of offensive aggression crippled the team's spacing. Even when he found the bottom of the net, hidden costs often negated his production. He scored a highly efficient 11 points on 12/16 vs DAL, but his Impact still sat at -0.5 due to poor defensive rotations and a failure to secure the glass. He has the raw tools of a modern forward, but his erratic game-to-game swings make him a risky rotation puzzle.

Taylor Hendricks spent this twenty-game stretch lost in the wilderness, bouncing between the starting five and the end of the bench while struggling to find any offensive rhythm. The absolute nadir arrived on 01/28 vs LAC. He posted a catastrophic -19.1 impact score in that contest after laying a complete goose egg with zero points on 0-for-4 shooting. When his outside shot refused to fall, he offered virtually no secondary value, drifting around the perimeter instead of diving for loose balls or disrupting passing lanes. Even when he scored efficiently, like his 10 points on 4-of-8 shooting on 02/11 vs DEN, he still registered a dismal -10.7 impact. That negative mark stemmed from severe defensive lapses and a total failure to secure contested rebounds against a physical frontline. He finally showed a pulse on 02/09 vs GSW, grinding out a 15-point, 10-rebound double-double that yielded a +8.1 impact. Though he needed 14 shots to get his points, he salvaged his overall value through relentless board-crashing and high-energy defensive rotations.

This stretch was a volatile rollercoaster defined by an awkward transition from hyper-efficient bench sparkplug to an overwhelmed starter. Operating as a reserve early on, he torched second units with ruthless shot-making, highlighted by a +16.3 Impact on 03/07 vs LAC where he dropped 18 points on nearly perfect 7-for-8 shooting. Even when his jumper completely abandoned him, he occasionally found ways to tilt the floor. During the 03/18 vs DEN matchup, Hendricks bricked his way to a brutal 1-for-10 mark from deep, yet still generated a +6.0 Impact because his relentless defensive rotations and loose-ball hustle kept the rotation afloat. However, his late-March promotion to the starting lineup exposed glaring offensive limitations. On 03/25 vs SAS, his inability to hit open looks resulted in a dismal -16.8 Impact, as he managed just two points on 1-for-7 shooting while actively hurting the team's half-court spacing. He clearly possesses the raw athletic tools to survive in the league, but his wildly inconsistent offensive diet makes him a frustrating puzzle to solve.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Inconsistent. Hendricks has clear good-night/bad-night splits, with scoring swinging ~6 points between games. You're never quite sure which version shows up.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 46% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Hendricks locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -5.7, second-half: -1.4. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 4 games. Longest cold streak: 17 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 66 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

N. Jokić 45.3 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
B. Carlson 41.0 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
M. Bridges 39.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
K. Johnson 31.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
Q. Post 26.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 6
J. Grant 26.3 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 7
V. Krejčí 26.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Tatum 25.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4
C. Cunningham 24.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
M. Potter 24.6 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.65
PTS 16

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

N. Jokić 49.2 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 20
M. Bridges 33.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6
J. Grant 29.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 12
O. Ighodaro 27.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
N. Marshall 27.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
J. Landale 27.4 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 10
M. Diabaté 27.4 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 7
B. Carlson 24.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 5
A. Sengun 23.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 6
T. Camara 23.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

59
Games
7.4
PPG
3.7
RPG
0.9
APG
0.8
SPG
0.5
BPG
45.9
FG%
34.2
3P%
68.1
FT%
19.0
MPG

GAME LOG

59 games played