GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 35.1m
35
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+22.1

An absolute masterclass in offensive aggression yielded a monstrous scoring impact (+28.3), completely overpowering a severe turnover penalty (-7.8). His shot-making premium (+5.2) indicates he was burying incredibly difficult looks, routinely bailing out stagnant possessions. Despite the sloppy ball security, his sheer volume and creation (+3.2) dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.7
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 35.1m -9.6
Impact +22.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Toumani Camara 32.9m
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.4

A disastrous shooting performance drove a heavy scoring penalty (-3.8), sabotaging an otherwise excellent defensive effort (+2.3). While he generated a slight shot-making bonus (+1.4) on the few looks that did fall, his overall inefficiency stalled out the offense. The relentless point-of-attack defense simply wasn't enough to cover for his crippling lack of offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 19.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 32.9m -17.5
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jrue Holiday 31.7m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.2

Masterful defensive orchestration (+2.1) and solid rebounding hustle (+3.8) barely kept his head above water amidst severe ball security issues. The crippling turnover penalty (-5.9) nearly erased his positive scoring and creation value, highlighting a night of erratic decision-making. He managed to salvage a positive impact purely through sheer grit and veteran positioning when the offense broke down.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 31.7m -11.4
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Scoot Henderson 31.1m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

A strong point-of-attack defensive showing (+2.6) and efficient scoring (+6.8) were heavily diluted by reckless ball-handling. The steep turnover cost (-4.7) reflects a pattern of forced reads that frequently ignited opponent transition opportunities. He flashed high-level shot-making (+2.0), but the maddening duality of his decision-making kept his overall influence neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 31.1m -11.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 28.1m
18
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.4

Sheer physical intimidation on the interior fueled a massive hustle bonus (+10.7), allowing him to dominate the glass on both ends. His scoring efficiency (+12.5) and shot-making premium (+4.0) show he was converting tough finishes through contact with ease. This performance was defined by brute force, completely overwhelming the opposing frontcourt despite minor defensive missteps.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +10.2
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 28.1m -16.0
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Kris Murray 20.4m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.3

Relentless energy on the glass (+7.9 hustle) and highly efficient finishing (+8.7 scoring) anchored a wildly productive rotational stint. He absorbed a noticeable turnover penalty (-3.5), but his ability to convert tough looks (+1.9 shot-making) kept the offense humming. By actively engaging physically, he completely shed the passive tendencies that have plagued his recent stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 20.4m -6.3
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

Game-wrecking defensive chaos (+10.5) completely defined this outing, as he suffocated opposing wings and blew up countless actions. He supplemented his elite disruption with mistake-free offensive execution, adding positive scoring value (+3.2) without committing a single turnover. This was the ideal version of his role, turning defensive havoc into a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +7.4
Defense +13.7
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 18.2m -14.8
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+16.7

Absolute dominance on the boards yielded a staggering hustle premium (+12.7), allowing him to completely control the interior geometry. He paired this physical overwhelming with flawless interior finishing (+10.2 scoring), punishing defensive rotations with ease. Operating as a terrifying high-leverage weapon, he tilted the floor entirely through sheer athleticism and positioning.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +67.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.9
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 17.6m -7.5
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Disastrous shot selection and sloppy execution (-4.7 turnover penalty) completely derailed his offensive flashes. While his shot-making bonus (+2.6) proves he can hit incredibly difficult looks, the hidden costs of his erratic decisions actively bled value. The solid rebounding hustle (+3.1) couldn't mask a performance defined by a lack of offensive discipline.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 15.2m -6.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite a surprisingly robust defensive showing (+2.4) and solid creation flashes (+1.2), his extreme lack of playing time limited his overall influence. He managed to generate positive scoring value (+2.0) in his brief minutes, avoiding the offensive invisibility that usually plagues him. However, the baseline penalty for such a short stint kept his final impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 2.6m -8.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

A brief, defense-first cameo provided just enough rim deterrence (+0.9) to register a slightly positive impact. He offered a minor presence on the glass (+0.4 hustle) while entirely avoiding offensive mistakes. It was a quiet, fundamentally sound stint that successfully bridged a gap in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

An entirely empty rotational appearance left him with a severe negative impact due to the baseline expectations of floor time. He failed to record a single positive metric, while a minor defensive lapse (-0.3) further dragged down his score. This stint was defined by a desperate struggle to simply stay involved in the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.9m -7.3
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Barely registering on the stat sheet during a fleeting appearance, his overall impact plummeted due to a lack of tangible production. He managed a microscopic scoring positive (+0.5), but offered absolutely zero defensive or rebounding resistance. The sheer brevity and passivity of the stint rendered him a virtual non-factor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 1.9m -8.7
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Generating virtually nothing outside of a minor hustle bonus (+0.3), this brief cameo was the definition of empty minutes. He failed to attempt a shot or make a defensive rotation of note, resulting in a steep negative impact. It was a completely anonymous stint where he simply existed on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.4m -8.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Darius Garland 40.5m
16
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.2

A surprisingly robust defensive effort (+3.7) and excellent rebounding hustle (+6.3) salvaged a night where ball security was a major issue. The steep turnover cost (-7.1) threatened to ruin his impact, but he compensated by hitting tough shots above expectation (+3.6 shot-making). His ability to impact the game physically masked the erratic decision-making that defined his offensive stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +9.6
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 40.5m -13.6
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kawhi Leonard 37.4m
24
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.4

Elite scoring gravity (+16.7) and relentless work on the glass (+8.2 hustle) drove this dominant outing. His shot-making bonus (+4.9) indicates he was burying difficult looks against tight coverage, continuing a month-long trend of surgical mid-range execution. The minor turnover penalty (-2.4) barely dented an otherwise masterful offensive carry-job.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 37.4m -4.1
Impact +21.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 36.2m
21
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.2

Blistering perimeter execution fueled a massive scoring impact (+15.5), completely offsetting his struggles in defensive space (-3.4). His excellent shot-making bonus (+6.4) highlights a barrage of contested threes that stretched the opposing frontcourt to its breaking point. Despite some sloppy giveaways (-5.4 turnover cost), his offensive gravity and rebounding hustle (+6.7) dictated the terms of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 36.2m -8.4
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 26.6m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Crippling offensive mistakes and uncharacteristic defensive lapses (-3.4) sank his overall value in this matchup. The severe turnover penalty (-5.4) highlights a pattern of forced passes that frequently ignited opponent fast breaks. While he provided marginal scoring value, his inability to string together clean possessions kept him firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 26.6m -12.7
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Disastrous ball security completely derailed an otherwise solid offensive showing, with severe turnover penalties (-7.8) erasing his positive scoring value. The shot-making bonus (+2.4) shows he was converting his looks effectively from the perimeter. Unfortunately, erratic decision-making in transition turned his minutes into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 23.3m -9.9
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
15
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.2

Exceptional finishing efficiency drove a stellar scoring impact (+12.5) that anchored his value on the wing. His shot-making premium (+3.1) reflects a player who is currently punishing closeouts and burying contested looks with supreme confidence. By keeping his mistakes to a minimum, he provided exactly the kind of reliable offensive punch needed from the supporting cast.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 32.4m -9.7
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
John Collins 13.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.2

A catastrophic combination of missed shots and sloppy ball-handling (-4.7 turnover cost) completely cratered his value during a brief stint. His negative scoring impact (-2.9) and defensive struggles (-1.4) highlight a player who was targeted on one end and ineffective on the other. This performance was defined by a total lack of rhythm, turning him into a glaring liability whenever he stepped on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -63.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 13.3m -12.3
Impact -15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 11.4m
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

Severe defensive breakdowns (-3.4) and careless ball security (-3.1 turnover penalty) turned this rotational appearance into a disaster. He offered absolutely nothing on the glass (+0.0 hustle), allowing opponents to dictate the physical terms of the matchup. The marginal scoring positives were entirely swallowed by the hidden costs of his erratic decision-making.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -76.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 11.4m -11.8
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Extreme offensive passivity turned the veteran into a perimeter ghost, actively harming his team's spacing during a brief appearance. Generating virtually zero value across the board, his negative scoring impact (-0.8) reflects a complete unwillingness to attack the defense. He simply floated through his minutes without leaving any tangible footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 5.4m -8.4
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Complete offensive invisibility during a brief rotational cameo resulted in a severely depressed impact score. He offered absolutely zero resistance or value on the glass (+0.0 hustle and defense), looking entirely disconnected from the flow of the game. A negative scoring impact (-1.5) perfectly encapsulates a stint defined by empty minutes and a glaring lack of aggression.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -84.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 5.2m -7.8
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

A fleeting and entirely unproductive cameo left him with a steep negative impact due to the baseline expectations of floor time. He failed to register a single positive contribution in any category, looking thoroughly overwhelmed by the speed of the contest. The negative scoring value (-0.6) underscores a stint defined by pure hesitancy.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -85.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 2.1m -7.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Registering nothing but zeroes across his component breakdown, this brief appearance was the definition of cardio. He failed to attempt a shot, grab a rebound, or make a defensive play, resulting in a slight negative impact simply for occupying the floor. It was a completely anonymous stint that neither helped nor hurt the overall scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -85.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.1m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Defensive liabilities (-1.6) quickly erased any marginal positives he brought during garbage time. While he managed a slight scoring bump (+1.0) and showed a pulse on the glass, his inability to anchor the paint defensively was glaring. Opponents immediately targeted him, exploiting his positioning to generate easy looks.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -85.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 2.1m -8.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

A brutal turnover penalty (-2.4) in just two minutes of action completely torpedoed his impact score. He failed to generate a single positive metric to offset the giveaways, looking entirely out of sync with the offensive flow. This fleeting appearance was defined purely by self-destructive ball-handling.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -85.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 2.1m -8.1
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1