MEM

2025-26 Season

TAYLOR HENDRICKS

Memphis Grizzlies | Forward | 6-9
Taylor Hendricks
7.2 PPG
3.7 RPG
0.9 APG
19.0 MPG
-1.1 Impact

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

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.1
Scoring +4.1
Points 7.2 PPG × +1.00 = +7.2
Missed 2PT 1.2/g × -0.78 = -0.9
Missed 3PT 2.1/g × -0.87 = -1.8
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +1.6
Assists 0.9/g × +0.50 = +0.5
Off. Rebounds 0.9/g × +1.26 = +1.1
Turnovers -1.8
Turnovers 0.9/g × -1.95 = -1.8
Defense +1.2
Steals 0.8/g × +2.30 = +1.8
Blocks 0.5/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 2.8/g × +0.30 = +0.8
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.3
Contested Shots 3.8/g × +0.20 = +0.8
Deflections 1.6/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 1.1/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +7.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −8.5
Net Impact
-1.1
35th pctl vs Forwards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 40th
7.6 PPG
Efficiency 41th
55.6% TS
Playmaking 22th
1.0 APG
Rebounding 45th
3.9 RPG
Rim Protection 71th
0.17/min
Hustle 52th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 53th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Extreme inconsistency and maddening offensive passivity defined this chaotic stretch for Taylor Hendricks. He occasionally managed to affect winning without scoring, like on 11/07 vs MIN when he posted a +2.2 impact despite tallying just four points because his phenomenal weakside rim protection erased multiple drives. Too often, though, his refusal to look at the basket actively harmed the team. During a brutal outing on 12/18 vs LAL, he registered a disastrous -8.7 impact score because his complete offensive invisibility allowed defenders to treat him as a non-factor and cramp the floor. The ceiling is undeniably high when he actually hunts his shot. He erupted on 12/23 vs MEM for 21 points and a massive +11.6 impact, pairing aggressive offensive execution with lockdown defensive versatility. He clearly possesses the two-way tools to swing games, but he must stop floating aimlessly around the perimeter to become a reliable rotation fixture.

An excruciating offensive slump defined this stretch for Taylor Hendricks. He frequently drifted around the perimeter as a total non-factor, turning him into a persistent liability. During a spot start on 01/10 vs CHA, his inability to hit from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, resulting in a disastrous -9.9 impact score. Things hit rock bottom off the bench on 01/27 vs LAC. He missed all four of his field goal attempts in just 12 minutes, posting a -12.2 impact score because his complete lack of shooting gravity created an offensive black hole. Even when his shots finally started falling, hidden costs often dragged down his overall value. On 02/11 vs DEN, he managed a respectable 10 points, but defensive positioning errors and slow rotations bled points on the other end to yield a -5.1 impact score. Unless he fixes his rushed catch-and-shoot mechanics and locks in defensively, his rotation minutes will continue to evaporate.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Hendricks's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~6 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 44% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Hendricks consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

In a rough stretch — 5 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 9 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

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

57
Games
7.2
PPG
3.7
RPG
0.9
APG
0.8
SPG
0.5
BPG
44.9
FG%
32.8
3P%
66.2
FT%
19.0
MPG

GAME LOG

57 games played