MEM

2025-26 Season

CAM SPENCER

Memphis Grizzlies | Guard | 6-3
Cam Spencer
11.1 PPG
2.6 RPG
5.5 APG
23.9 MPG
-0.4 Impact

Spencer produces at an average rate for a 24-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.4
Scoring +7.5
Points 11.1 PPG × +1.00 = +11.1
Missed 2PT 1.6/g × -0.78 = -1.3
Missed 3PT 2.5/g × -0.87 = -2.2
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +3.6
Assists 5.5/g × +0.50 = +2.8
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -2.5
Turnovers 1.3/g × -1.95 = -2.5
Defense +0.5
Steals 0.7/g × +2.30 = +1.6
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 1.9/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.8
Contested Shots 2.0/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 1.5/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +10.9
Baseline (game-average expected) −11.3
Net Impact
-0.4
63th pctl vs Guards

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 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 58th
11.1 PPG
Efficiency 99th
64.8% TS
Playmaking 87th
5.5 APG
Rebounding 40th
2.6 RPG
Rim Protection 33th
0.10/min
Hustle 14th
0.08/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 54th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Cam Spencer’s opening twenty games were defined by wild perimeter volatility, oscillating violently between game-breaking heat checks and offensive sabotage. When his jumper abandoned him, the results were disastrous. On 10/24 vs MIA, he posted a brutal -12.3 impact score while scoring just two points, actively shooting his team out of possessions with a string of rushed, off-balance attempts from beyond the arc. Yet, when he found his rhythm, his gravity completely warped opposing defensive schemes. He caught fire on 11/05 vs HOU, dropping 19 points on five triples to generate a +6.8 impact by shattering their zone coverage. Scoring alone rarely guaranteed a positive night for the guard, however. During 11/28 vs LAC, he managed a respectable 10 points on 4-of-9 shooting, but still dragged down the lineup with a -7.3 impact because his minutes directly coincided with massive opponent runs. He is a lethal weapon when disciplined, but a glaring liability when he forces the issue.

A volatile tug-of-war between brilliant playmaking vision and crippling shot selection defined Cam Spencer's midseason stint as he bounced between the bench and the starting lineup. Operating as the primary offensive engine on 12/20 vs WAS yielded a robust 19 points and 11 assists, but his spotty efficiency ultimately dragged his actual impact down to a disappointing -3.8. That destructive tendency hit rock bottom during a disastrous start on 01/04 vs LAL. Despite dishing out nine assists, his abysmal 1-for-10 shooting and poor decision-making completely derailed the offense, resulting in a staggering -18.1 impact score. Fortunately, Spencer eventually figured out how to generate winning basketball without forcing his own offense. On 01/15 vs ORL, he managed a meager seven points on rough 2-for-7 shooting, but his elite ball distribution salvaged the night. By keeping the offense humming and feeding open teammates, he carved out a +1.2 impact score, revealing that his true value relies on surgical facilitation rather than forced volume.

This stretch of the season was defined by maddening inconsistency, with Cam Spencer swinging wildly between lethal offensive eruptions and complete disappearing acts. During an icy 01/28 vs CHA start, his broken perimeter jumper yielded a horrific -14.2 impact score as defenders simply ignored him. Yet, when he engaged physically and hunted his spots, he could completely tilt a game. Look no further than 02/27 vs DAL, where a massive 25-point barrage off the bench fueled a stellar +14.5 impact score. He even found ways to drive winning basketball without a heavy scoring load, logging a +6.4 impact score on 02/20 vs UTA by dishing out 10 assists and tearing the defense apart with precise orchestration. However, individual scoring didn't always translate to overall value for the volatile guard. Despite dropping 16 points on 02/02 vs MIN, he posted a -1.3 impact score because a glaring lack of off-ball physicality allowed opponents to bully him out of the play. If Spencer wants to be a reliable rotation piece, he must eradicate these passive stretches and commit to the dirty work when his jump shot abandons him.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Spencer'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 53% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 72 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

T. Camara 55.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
A. Thompson 51.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
A. Mitchell 45.3 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 10
C. Gillespie 42.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 10
H. Jones 42.7 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 14
K. Dunn 39.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 9
I. Collier 35.5 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 15
A. Black 34.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 9
S. Castle 34.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 5
C. Wallace 33.7 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

H. Jones 59.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
J. Champagnie 54.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
N. Clifford 51.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
T. Camara 51.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
B. Brown 48.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Dunn 47.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7
C. Gillespie 44.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
J. McDaniels 43.9 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 11
I. Joe 37.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 3
T. Eason 35.9 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.45
PTS 16

SEASON STATS

71
Games
11.1
PPG
2.6
RPG
5.5
APG
0.7
SPG
0.2
BPG
47.2
FG%
44.7
3P%
94.0
FT%
23.9
MPG

GAME LOG

71 games played