MEM

2025-26 Season

GG JACKSON

Memphis Grizzlies | Forward | 6-9
GG Jackson
12.5 PPG
4.3 RPG
1.4 APG
21.5 MPG
+0.1 Impact

Jackson produces at an average rate for a 22-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.1
Scoring +7.9
Points 12.5 PPG × +1.00 = +12.5
Missed 2PT 2.3/g × -0.78 = -1.8
Missed 3PT 2.4/g × -0.87 = -2.1
Missed FT 0.7/g × -1.00 = -0.7
Creation +2.1
Assists 1.4/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 1.1/g × +1.26 = +1.4
Turnovers -3.1
Turnovers 1.6/g × -1.95 = -3.1
Defense +1.2
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.8/g × +0.90 = +0.7
Def. Rebounds 3.2/g × +0.30 = +1.0
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.1
Contested Shots 4.7/g × +0.20 = +0.9
Deflections 1.1/g × +0.65 = +0.7
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +10.2
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.1
Net Impact
+0.1
51st 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 70th
13.5 PPG
Efficiency 75th
60.3% TS
Playmaking 50th
1.6 APG
Rebounding 56th
4.6 RPG
Rim Protection 63th
0.16/min
Hustle 41th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 13th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

GG Jackson's early season was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between highly efficient flashes and completely invisible stretches. When his jumper abandoned him during the 12/28 vs WAS matchup, he still managed a +2.2 impact score despite scoring just 5 points. He generated this hidden value by seamlessly pivoting into a defensive stopper role to lock down his assignments. Conversely, his offensive outbursts often carried heavy costs. During the 01/09 vs OKC game, Jackson poured in 18 points but actually suffered a negative -1.3 impact. His aggressive shot-hunting yielded buckets, but a glaring lack of defensive discipline dragged his overall rating into the red. The bottom fell out entirely during the 01/06 vs SAS contest. A drastic collapse in offensive execution that night resulted in a catastrophic -13.7 impact score, exposing the harsh reality of his current boom-or-bust game.

GG Jackson’s midseason stretch was defined by a chaotic transition into the starting lineup, marked by wild swings between dominant interior play and frustrating isolation habits. He was an absolute wrecking ball on 02/21 vs MIA, racking up 28 points on 11-of-17 shooting to post a massive +12.5 impact score by completely dominating his interior matchups. Yet, when given a longer leash as a starter, his worst habits often resurfaced to hurt the team. On 03/04 vs POR, he poured in 20 points, but his dismal -5.3 impact score reveals the hidden costs of his night. High-volume, low-efficiency isolation attempts severely disrupted the offensive flow, bleeding away the value of his raw scoring output. Sometimes, less was actually more. During the 03/03 vs MIN matchup, Jackson attempted just five shots for 12 points, but his +5.8 impact score was driven entirely by elite positioning on the glass, pulling down 11 rebounds to kill second-chance opportunities.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Jackson's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 57% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -1.0, second-half: +1.3. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 65 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

J. Grant 51.2 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 12
J. Randle 39.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 6
N. Reid 39.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 6
M. Bridges 35.8 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
C. Johnson 33.7 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 13
S. Cissoko 31.2 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 9
D. Bane 31.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Middleton 29.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
J. Johnson 27.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
K. Johnson 27.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 5

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Grant 56.0 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 14
A. Thompson 49.3 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 9
D. Bane 37.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
J. Randle 36.7 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.25
PTS 9
N. Reid 35.1 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 6
C. Johnson 34.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 5
S. Cissoko 31.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
M. Bridges 30.2 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 6
C. Gillespie 30.2 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
L. James 27.0 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.44
PTS 12

SEASON STATS

54
Games
12.5
PPG
4.3
RPG
1.4
APG
0.6
SPG
0.8
BPG
49.9
FG%
33.2
3P%
73.5
FT%
21.5
MPG

GAME LOG

54 games played