GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 32.5m
23
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

High-volume scoring masked a brutal defensive performance where he repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts. A slew of live-ball turnovers in transition completely erased the value of his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 32.5m -16.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jrue Holiday 32.5m
11
pts
3
reb
13
ast
Impact
+0.1

Elite screen navigation and textbook ball pressure neutralized the opponent's primary actions all night long. However, a string of badly bricked pull-up jumpers and forced entry passes nearly negated his masterful defensive clinic.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 32.5m -16.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 30.4m
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Brought tremendous point-of-attack energy that disrupted the opposing backcourt, but gave the value right back with reckless offensive fouls. Forcing contested floaters in traffic ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative despite his defensive tenacity.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 30.4m -15.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 24.4m
5
pts
15
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Anchored the paint with an imposing drop coverage that completely deterred drivers from challenging the rim. Even though his touch around the basket was completely absent, his relentless offensive rebounding generated crucial second-chance opportunities that drove winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 24.4m -12.1
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Shaedon Sharpe 24.1m
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by aggressively attacking closeouts and finishing through contact. While his off-ball defense remains a step slow, his ability to generate unassisted offense in the half-court kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 24.1m -11.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jerami Grant 31.8m
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Operated as a black hole on offense, frequently stalling possessions with isolation mid-range attempts that bailed out the defense. He salvaged his overall impact solely through excellent weak-side rim protection and timely rotations to cover blown assignments.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 31.8m -15.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Kris Murray 29.5m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, routinely giving up an extra step to movement shooters. While he crashed the glass with purpose, a few critical miscommunications in transition defense kept his net rating slightly below zero.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.5m -14.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Provided an immediate vertical spacing threat that forced the defense to collapse on his rim runs. His quick leaping ability altered several interior looks, allowing the team to string together stops during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -33.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 11.2m -5.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Completely changed the tempo of the game during a brief stint by hounding ball-handlers the full length of the court. His disruptive hands led directly to run-out opportunities, maximizing his value despite a low usage rate.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 9.6m -4.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 7.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Completely invisible on the offensive end, missing his pick-and-pop attempts while failing to secure interior position. His inability to establish a physical presence allowed the defense to easily switch and recover without paying a price.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 7.5m -3.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Looked visibly rushed during his short stint, forcing a pair of contested jumpers early in the clock. Failed to make an imprint defensively, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the team's shell.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -60.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 6.5m -3.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 37.0m
21
pts
14
reb
9
ast
Impact
+14.8

Absolute dominance as a central hub, manipulating the defense with pinpoint skip passes and elite spatial awareness. His massive defensive rating was fueled by phenomenal rebounding positioning and active hands in the passing lanes that constantly disrupted entry feeds.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +10.3
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 37.0m -18.3
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 34.4m
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

High-level shot creation and aggressive drives into the paint consistently collapsed the opposing defense. He supplemented his scoring gravity with timely closeouts and active ball-denial on the perimeter, keeping his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 34.4m -17.0
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Gordon 31.7m
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Offensive spacing issues and missed reads on baseline cuts severely limited his effectiveness in the half-court. While his physical post defense held up well, settling for contested mid-range looks stalled the team's momentum during critical stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 31.7m -15.6
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cameron Johnson 31.1m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Costly defensive rotations and a lack of secondary playmaking dragged his overall impact into the red. Despite decent shooting efficiency, his inability to generate loose ball recoveries or deflections allowed Portland's wings to find rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 31.1m -15.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Christian Braun 30.1m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.0

A disastrous stint characterized by blown defensive assignments and poor shot selection from the perimeter. His inability to keep ball-handlers in front of him forced the defense into constant rotation, bleeding points at an alarming rate.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 30.1m -14.9
Impact -17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Wreaked absolute havoc as a weak-side helper, using his length to alter shots at the rim and blow up pick-and-roll actions. His relentless energy on 50/50 balls provided crucial extra possessions that outweighed a few clunky offensive drives.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +7.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 22.6m -11.2
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Chucking early in the shot clock and forcing heavily contested looks derailed the offensive flow during his minutes. Although he offered some resistance on the wing, the sheer volume of wasted possessions kept his net rating slightly below sea level.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 22.5m -11.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 19.6m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Struggled to find a rhythm as an off-ball cutter, frequently clogging the paint and disrupting driving lanes for the primary creators. A lack of point-of-attack pressure on defense allowed opposing guards to easily walk into comfortable pull-up jumpers.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 19.6m -9.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Provided a quick infusion of interior physicality, sealing off defenders early in the shot clock to create high-percentage looks around the basket. However, his heavy feet in drop coverage made him a target in high pick-and-rolls, capping his overall defensive value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 40.7%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 10.9m -5.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2