Memphis Grizzlies vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats
The memphis grizzlies vs golden state warriors match player stats from the 2026 NBA Summer League meeting provide a detailed look at how Memphis turned a close first half into a convincing 106-85 victory over Golden State. Played on July 15, 2026, at Pavilion in Las Vegas, the game featured strong three-point shooting from Memphis, an efficient scoring performance from Javon Small, and a major second-half swing that separated the two teams.
Memphis entered the game with a 4-2 record, while Golden State was 5-1. Despite the Warriors having the better record entering the contest, Memphis controlled the most important phases of the game after halftime. The Grizzlies scored 29 points in the third quarter and another 30 in the fourth, while Golden State managed only 13 points in the third.
The final 21-point margin does not tell the entire story. Golden State actually led 24-22 after the opening quarter. Memphis then changed the rhythm of the game through better perimeter efficiency, stronger defensive activity, and improved offensive execution.
This breakdown examines the complete memphis grizzlies vs golden state warriors match player stats, including individual scoring, shooting, rebounding, playmaking, defense, team efficiency, quarter-by-quarter performance, and the factors that shaped the result.
Memphis Grizzlies vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place in the 2026 NBA Summer League in Las Vegas. The Summer League brings together young players, prospects, rookies, developing talent, and players competing for professional opportunities.
Game Information
| Category | Details |
| Teams | Memphis Grizzlies vs Golden State Warriors |
| Competition | NBA Summer League, Las Vegas |
| Date | July 15, 2026 |
| Venue | Pavilion, Las Vegas, Nevada |
| Final Score | Memphis 106, Golden State 85 |
| Point Differential | Memphis +21 |
| Memphis Record | 4-2 |
| Golden State Record | 5-1 |
| Game Time | 4:00 AM |
| Game ID | 401881861 |
| Broadcast | ESPN, NBC Sports BA +1 |
The most important statistical theme was Memphis’ shooting efficiency from outside the arc. The Grizzlies converted 17 of 32 three-point attempts, good for 53 percent. Golden State made 10 of 32, or 31 percent.
That difference alone represented 21 more points from three-point range for Memphis.
Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The game developed in very different stages.
| Quarter | Memphis | Golden State |
| First | 22 | 24 |
| Second | 25 | 20 |
| Third | 29 | 13 |
| Fourth | 30 | 28 |
| Total | 106 | 85 |
Golden State had the early advantage, but Memphis gradually took control.
First Quarter
Golden State opened with a 24-22 advantage.
The two teams were relatively close offensively during the opening period. There was no indication that the game would eventually develop into a 21-point Memphis victory.
The Warriors’ early advantage came despite their eventual three-point shooting problems. At this stage, the game remained competitive and relatively balanced.
Second Quarter
Memphis responded with a 25-20 second quarter and went into halftime ahead.
That five-point quarter advantage was important because it represented the first major momentum shift. Memphis did not need a dramatic offensive explosion. Instead, the Grizzlies gradually improved their shot-making and reduced Golden State’s ability to maintain its first-quarter rhythm.
Third Quarter
The third quarter was the decisive period.
Memphis scored 29 points while Golden State managed only 13.
A 16-point difference in one quarter transformed a competitive game into a situation where Golden State had to chase the game. Memphis combined perimeter shooting with defensive activity, while the Warriors struggled to produce efficient offense.
Fourth Quarter
Memphis scored another 30 points in the final period.
Golden State improved offensively with 28 points, but by then the deficit was too large to overcome. Memphis entered the final quarter with a substantial lead and continued producing enough offense to protect it.
The fourth quarter therefore became more about maintaining control than creating it.
Memphis Individual Player Performance
The Memphis side produced several important contributions, but Javon Small was the central offensive figure.
Javon Small
Javon Small led Memphis with 26 points and 7 assists.
His three-point shooting was particularly important. Small made 5 of 8 attempts from three-point range, giving Memphis an efficient perimeter scoring option.
His seven assists also demonstrate that his contribution went beyond scoring.
When a player combines 26 points with seven assists, the defensive challenge becomes more complicated. Opponents cannot simply focus on stopping that player from shooting because his passing can create opportunities for teammates.
Small’s performance was therefore one of the clearest statistical explanations for Memphis’ offensive success.
Brendan Hausen
Brendan Hausen supplied one of the most efficient scoring performances of the game.
He scored 20 points on 7-of-9 shooting and made 6 of 8 three-point attempts.
That combination is particularly notable.
Hausen attempted only nine field goals but produced 20 points because six of his successful shots came from behind the arc. His three-point accuracy gave Memphis an additional perimeter threat alongside Small.
From a team perspective, this mattered because Golden State could not concentrate its entire defensive strategy on Small.
Taylor Hendricks
Taylor Hendricks scored 13 points.
He was Memphis’ third-leading scorer and helped provide additional scoring balance.
A team becomes harder to defend when several players contribute meaningful points rather than relying on one high-volume scorer. Memphis had three players in double figures among the leading contributors, with additional offensive production coming from its bench.
Cameron Boozer
Cameron Boozer contributed 7 rebounds and recorded 3 steals.
Although his scoring total was not listed among Memphis’ three leading scorers, his rebounding and defensive activity were valuable.
Seven rebounds helped Memphis compete on the glass, while three steals showed his impact in creating defensive possessions.
Lawson Lovering
Lawson Lovering recorded 2 blocks.
Rim protection was an important part of Memphis’ defensive statistical profile. The Grizzlies finished with seven blocks as a team, compared with five for Golden State.
Lovering’s two blocks were therefore part of a broader Memphis defensive effort around the basket.
Golden State Individual Player Performance
Golden State had several productive individual performances, but the team’s overall shooting efficiency did not match Memphis‘ level.
Yaxel Lendeborg
Yaxel Lendeborg led Golden State with 15 points and 9 rebounds.
He was also one of the Warriors’ most active defensive players, recording 2 steals.
His nine rebounds were the highest total for either team in the individual rebounding data provided for Golden State, and they represented a strong all-around contribution despite the final result.
Lendeborg’s performance illustrates why individual statistics should be examined separately from the final score. A player can contribute effectively while his team struggles collectively.
Will Richard
Will Richard scored 11 points and made 3 of 7 three-point attempts.
His three made threes represented an important part of Golden State’s perimeter production, but the Warriors needed more efficient outside shooting across the roster.
Malevy Leons
Malevy Leons finished with 10 points.
He also recorded 2 steals, matching Lendeborg’s individual steal total.
His double-digit scoring helped Golden State avoid becoming overly dependent on one player for offense.
Colby Jones
Colby Jones recorded 5 assists, the highest assist total listed for Golden State.
His playmaking was an important positive statistic for the Warriors.
However, Golden State finished with 18 assists compared with Memphis’ 21. The three-assist difference was not enormous, but combined with the shooting numbers, it contributed to the overall offensive gap.
Lachlan Olbrich
Lachlan Olbrich recorded 2 blocks.
Golden State finished with five blocks as a team, so Olbrich’s two represented a meaningful portion of the team’s rim protection.
Team Shooting Comparison
The shooting numbers provide perhaps the clearest explanation for the final result.
| Statistic | Memphis | Golden State |
| Field Goals | 31-66 | 34-74 |
| FG Percentage | 47% | 46% |
| Three-Pointers | 17-32 | 10-32 |
| 3PT Percentage | 53% | 31% |
| Free Throws | 15-20 | 5-5 |
| FT Percentage | 75% | 100% |
The field-goal percentages were nearly identical.
That is an important detail.
Memphis did not win because it was dramatically more accurate on every type of shot. The biggest difference came from three-point shooting and free-throw volume.
Three-Point Shooting
Memphis made seven more three-pointers than Golden State.
Both teams attempted 32 threes, meaning the difference came almost entirely from conversion rate.
Memphis:
17 of 32, 53 percent
Golden State:
10 of 32, 31 percent
This created a significant scoring advantage.
Memphis generated 51 points from three-point makes. Golden State generated 30.
That is a 21-point difference from three-point baskets alone.
Considering that Memphis won by 21 points, the relationship between perimeter shooting and the final score is impossible to overlook.
Free Throws
Golden State went 5-for-5 at the free-throw line.
Memphis went 15-for-20.
The Warriors were perfect, but Memphis attempted 15 more free throws.
Memphis therefore received additional scoring opportunities from the foul line that Golden State did not receive.
Rebounding Comparison
Memphis collected 37 rebounds, while Golden State recorded 29.
That gave Memphis an eight-rebound advantage.
| Rebounding Category | Memphis | Golden State |
| Total Rebounds | 37 | 29 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 11 | 9 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 26 | 20 |
Memphis led in every listed rebounding category.
The defensive rebounding difference was especially useful. Memphis grabbed 26 defensive rebounds compared with 20 for Golden State, helping the Grizzlies finish defensive possessions.
The offensive rebounding advantage was smaller, but Memphis still had two more offensive boards.
Assists and Ball Movement
Memphis recorded 21 assists, while Golden State had 18.
The difference was modest, but it supports the broader picture of Memphis producing slightly more organized offensive possessions.
Javon Small led Memphis with seven assists.
Colby Jones led Golden State with five.
The two teams were not separated by an enormous playmaking gap. Instead, the assist numbers complemented other differences, particularly three-point efficiency and rebounding.
Turnovers and Possession Efficiency
Memphis committed 15 turnovers.
Golden State committed 16.
The one-turnover difference was small.
This means turnovers were not the primary reason Memphis won.
In fact, the game provides a useful example of why simply looking at turnovers can be misleading. Golden State actually recorded one more steal than Memphis, with nine compared with eight, yet the Warriors still lost by 21.
The larger statistical story was what happened after possessions were established.
Memphis converted its opportunities more efficiently from three-point range and controlled the rebounding battle.
Defensive Statistics
The defensive numbers were competitive in several categories.
| Defensive Statistic | Memphis | Golden State |
| Steals | 8 | 9 |
| Blocks | 7 | 5 |
| Fouls | 19 | 28 |
Golden State had one more steal.
Memphis had two more blocks.
The biggest difference was fouling.
Golden State committed 28 fouls, compared with 19 for Memphis.
That nine-foul difference is significant because Memphis also attempted 20 free throws.
Golden State’s five free-throw attempts suggest that the Warriors did not receive nearly the same number of scoring opportunities at the line.
Why the Third Quarter Changed the Game
The third quarter deserves special attention when analyzing the memphis grizzlies vs golden state warriors match player stats.
Memphis scored 29 points.
Golden State scored 13.
That 16-point difference was larger than the final margin would suggest if viewed without context.
Before the third quarter, the game was competitive. After it, Memphis had created a substantial advantage.
Several statistical trends help explain the shift.
First, Memphis had already established its three-point efficiency.
Second, the Grizzlies had an advantage on the glass.
Third, Golden State’s overall shooting efficiency from three was considerably lower.
Fourth, Memphis continued generating contributions from multiple players.
This combination allowed the Grizzlies to turn a close contest into a controlled game.
The Importance of Memphis’ Bench Scoring
One of the most notable individual statistics was Brendan Hausen’s 20 points.
His efficiency was remarkable:
- 20 points
- 7-of-9 field goals
- 6-of-8 three-pointers
Hausen’s six made threes were more than half of Golden State’s entire team total.
This is particularly useful when evaluating the overall offensive structure.
Memphis did not depend solely on one player to create offense. Small provided scoring and playmaking, while Hausen delivered elite perimeter efficiency for this particular game.
That combination made the defense’s task more difficult.
What Golden State Could Not Match
Golden State actually made more total field goals.
The Warriors made 34 field goals compared with Memphis’ 31.
That might seem surprising given the 21-point loss.
The explanation is shot value.
Golden State attempted 74 field goals and made 34. Memphis attempted 66 and made 31.
But Memphis made 17 threes.
Golden State made only 10.
The difference was not primarily about the number of baskets. It was about the value and efficiency of the baskets being made.
This is one of the most useful lessons from the statistical record.
A team can make more field goals and still lose by a large margin when the opposing team produces substantially more efficient three-point scoring.
Memphis’ Offensive Formula
Memphis’ offensive performance can be summarized through four major elements.
Efficient Perimeter Shooting
The Grizzlies shot 53 percent from three.
That was the single biggest shooting advantage in the game.
Multiple Scoring Options
Small scored 26.
Hausen scored 20.
Hendricks scored 13.
This distribution reduced the pressure on any single player.
Rebounding
Memphis won the rebounding battle 37-29.
That gave the Grizzlies more control over missed shots and helped limit Golden State’s second-chance opportunities.
Free-Throw Opportunities
Memphis attempted 20 free throws compared with five for Golden State.
Even though the Grizzlies did not shoot perfectly, the additional attempts provided another scoring channel.
Golden State’s Positive Takeaways
A 21-point loss does not mean every individual statistical category was negative for Golden State.
Several areas were competitive.
The Warriors made 34 field goals, more than Memphis’ 31.
- They shot 46 percent overall.
- They recorded 18 assists.
- They collected nine steals.
- They made all five free throws they attempted.
Yaxel Lendeborg posted 15 points and nine rebounds.
Will Richard scored 11 points and made three threes.
Malevy Leons scored 10 points.
Colby Jones produced five assists.
These numbers show that Golden State had productive individual contributions. The problem was that those contributions did not combine into the same overall efficiency Memphis produced.
A Closer Look at the Matchup Through Four Key Numbers
When reviewing the memphis grizzlies vs golden state warriors match player stats, four numbers stand out.
53 Percent
Memphis’ three-point percentage was 53 percent.
That was the foundation of the offensive advantage.
31 Percent
Golden State’s three-point percentage was 31 percent.
With both teams taking exactly 32 three-point attempts, the comparison is especially clean.
37 Rebounds
Memphis controlled the glass with 37 total rebounds.
Golden State had 29.
21 Points
The final difference was 21 points.
Interestingly, the three-point scoring difference was also 21 points.
That does not mean every point of the final margin came exclusively from three-point shooting because other statistical categories also affected the score. However, it clearly demonstrates how central perimeter efficiency was to the result.
Player Statistics at a Glance
Memphis Grizzlies
| Player | Key Statistic |
| Javon Small | 26 points, 7 assists, 5-8 3PT |
| Brendan Hausen | 20 points, 7-9 FG, 6-8 3PT |
| Taylor Hendricks | 13 points |
| Cameron Boozer | 7 rebounds, 3 steals |
| Lawson Lovering | 2 blocks |
Memphis’ listed starters were Lawson Lovering, Cameron Boozer, Cedric Coward, Taylor Hendricks, and Javon Small.
Golden State Warriors
| Player | Key Statistic |
| Yaxel Lendeborg | 15 points, 9 rebounds, 2 steals |
| Will Richard | 11 points, 3-7 3PT |
| Malevy Leons | 10 points, 2 steals |
| Colby Jones | 5 assists |
| Lachlan Olbrich | 2 blocks |
Golden State’s listed starters were Yaxel Lendeborg, Malevy Leons, Will Richard, Graham Ike, and LJ Cryer.
What These Numbers Mean for Player Evaluation
Summer League statistics require context.
A single game should not be treated as a complete evaluation of a player’s professional potential.
Instead, individual statistics are most useful when viewed alongside role, efficiency, decision-making, physical tools, defensive activity, and consistency across multiple games.
For example, Small’s 26 points are meaningful, but his seven assists and 5-of-8 three-point shooting provide additional context.
Similarly, Hausen’s 20 points become more interesting when his 7-of-9 shooting and 6-of-8 performance from three are included.
Lendeborg’s 15 points should be considered together with nine rebounds and two steals.
This approach gives readers a more accurate understanding than simply listing scoring totals.
How to Read Summer League Player Stats Correctly
Readers often search for a box score because they want to know who performed well. But a useful analysis should go beyond the highest scoring player.
Here are several practical questions to ask.
Was the player efficient?
Twenty points on 18 shots is a different performance from 20 points on nine shots.
Hausen’s 20 points on 7-of-9 shooting show why efficiency matters.
Did the player contribute in multiple areas?
A player who scores 15 points with nine rebounds and two steals is contributing differently from a player who scores 15 points without other measurable production.
Lendeborg’s statistics demonstrate this distinction.
Did the team need the player’s production?
A player’s statistics should also be considered in the context of team strategy.
Small’s combination of scoring and assists made him important to Memphis’ offensive structure.
Did the performance hold up across the game?
Quarter-by-quarter production can reveal when a player or team gained control.
Memphis’ 29-point third quarter was a major turning point.
Summer League Context
The 2026 Las Vegas Summer League featured all 30 NBA teams and 76 games across an 11-day competition. Each team played at least five games, with a semifinal and championship structure following the initial schedule.
This context matters when interpreting records.
A Summer League record is not equivalent to a regular-season NBA record. Teams are evaluating prospects, young players, roster combinations, and developmental priorities.
Players can also have different roles from one game to another.
For that reason, this box score is most useful as a snapshot of what happened in this specific matchup.
What Made Memphis’ Victory So Significant Statistically?
The final score of 106-85 reflects several connected advantages.
- Memphis shot better from three.
- Memphis rebounded better.
- Memphis attempted more free throws.
- Memphis recorded more assists.
- Memphis committed one fewer turnover.
- Memphis had more blocks.
Golden State did have more steals and made more total field goals, but those advantages were not enough to compensate for the Grizzlies’ perimeter efficiency and rebounding edge.
The statistical profile therefore points toward a game won through efficiency rather than simply volume.
A Simple Statistical Summary
For readers who want the shortest possible interpretation, the game can be reduced to this:
Memphis won because it converted its offensive opportunities more effectively.
The Grizzlies did not shoot dramatically better overall from the field. Their overall field-goal percentage was 47 percent compared with 46 percent for Golden State.
Instead, Memphis gained its major advantage from three-point shooting.
The Grizzlies also controlled the rebounding battle and received significantly more free-throw opportunities.
Once Memphis opened a large third-quarter advantage, Golden State could not recover.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score of the Memphis vs Golden State Summer League game?
Memphis defeated Golden State 106-85 on July 15, 2026, at Pavilion in Las Vegas.
Who led Memphis in scoring?
Javon Small led Memphis with 26 points. He also recorded seven assists and made five of eight three-point attempts.
Who led Golden State in scoring?
Yaxel Lendeborg led Golden State with 15 points. He also collected nine rebounds and recorded two steals.
Which team shot better from three-point range?
Memphis shot 53 percent from three, making 17 of 32 attempts. Golden State shot 31 percent, making 10 of 32 attempts.
Who had the most rebounds?
Yaxel Lendeborg led Golden State with nine rebounds, while Cameron Boozer led Memphis with seven. Memphis won the overall rebounding battle 37-29.
Why did Memphis win by 21 points?
The biggest statistical differences were Memphis’ 53 percent three-point shooting, Golden State’s 31 percent three-point shooting, Memphis’ 37-29 rebounding advantage, and the Grizzlies’ 20-5 advantage in free-throw attempts.
Conclusion
The memphis grizzlies vs golden state warriors match player stats tell the story of a game that changed dramatically after halftime.
Golden State started with a 24-22 first-quarter lead, but Memphis responded in the second quarter and then dominated the third. The Grizzlies scored 29 points in that period while limiting Golden State to 13.
Javon Small was the leading Memphis scorer with 26 points and seven assists, while Brendan Hausen added 20 points on highly efficient shooting. Taylor Hendricks contributed 13 points, Cameron Boozer led Memphis in rebounding with seven and added three steals, and Lawson Lovering recorded two blocks.
For Golden State, Yaxel Lendeborg led the team with 15 points and nine rebounds. Will Richard scored 11 points, Malevy Leons added 10, Colby Jones led the team with five assists, and Lachlan Olbrich recorded two blocks.
The clearest team-level difference was three-point shooting. Memphis made 17 of 32 attempts, while Golden State made 10 of 32. Memphis also won the rebounding battle 37-29 and attempted 20 free throws compared with five for Golden State.
The overall field-goal percentages were almost identical, making the three-point and possession-level differences even more important to understanding the final 106-85 result.
For readers tracking prospects and Summer League development, the most useful approach is to combine scoring with efficiency, rebounding, assists, defensive activity, turnovers, and role. A single box score provides valuable evidence about one game, but it should be considered alongside performances from the wider Summer League schedule.
