GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 39.7m
37
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.6

Scorching hot perimeter shooting and aggressive slashing inflated his box score, yet his overall impact remained surprisingly muted. Poor transition defense and late rotations gave back much of the value he generated offensively. A third-quarter scoring explosion defined his night, even if the two-way metrics suggest a more balanced reality.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 8/14 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 39.7m -21.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Jerami Grant 32.4m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

Forcing heavily contested mid-range isolation looks tanked his offensive efficiency and overall score. He repeatedly stalled the offense by holding the ball too long against set defenses. While his individual on-ball defense was passable, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions buried his net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.5%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 32.4m -17.4
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Toumani Camara 30.3m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

A brutal perimeter shooting slump severely damaged his overall impact, completely erasing his elite hustle metrics. He continuously settled for contested outside looks rather than attacking the closeout. Despite generating extra possessions through sheer effort, his offensive inefficiency was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 30.3m -16.3
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 26.1m
9
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Massive interior presence and elite rim protection drove a highly positive net rating. He completely altered the geometry of the paint, forcing opponents to kick the ball out rather than challenge him inside. Dominating the glass on both ends compensated for a few clunky finishes around the basket.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 26.1m -14.0
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 18.3m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Offensive hesitation and a lack of shooting gravity allowed defenders to sag off, bogging down the half-court spacing. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, leading to defensive breakdowns that compounded his negative score. A failure to capitalize on wide-open spot-up opportunities highlighted a frustrating shift.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 18.3m -9.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 29.1m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Despite highly efficient shot selection, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to being targeted in pick-and-roll switches. He provided solid connective passing, but struggled to contain dribble penetration. Getting caught on screens during a crucial second-half run ultimately dragged down his final rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.1m -15.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Drifting through offensive sets without asserting his athleticism caused his overall net impact to plummet. While he converted the few looks he took, his lack of off-ball movement made him easy to guard. A passive approach to rebounding and loose balls further limited his ability to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 21.5m -11.5
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.7

Phenomenal weak-side shot blocking and vertical spacing created a massive positive swing during his minutes. He functioned as a perfect defensive anchor, erasing perimeter mistakes with his elite recovery speed. Catching lobs out of the pick-and-roll punished the defense every time they tried to blitz the ball handler.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +12.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 19.6m -10.4
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
Caleb Love 12.3m
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.8

A complete inability to find the bottom of the net resulted in a disastrously low impact score. He rushed his offensive reads, firing up ill-advised jumpers early in the shot clock. Getting consistently beat off the dribble on the other end only magnified the damage of his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -40.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 12.3m -6.6
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Zero offensive aggression rendered him a liability on that end of the floor, dragging his total score down. He did provide some value by utilizing his wingspan to disrupt passing lanes on defense. However, his reluctance to even look at the rim allowed the opposing defense to trap the primary ball handlers freely.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 8.6m -4.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation offered almost no time to generate a meaningful statistical footprint. He missed his lone attempt in the paint during a rushed offensive sequence. The sample size was simply too small to evaluate anything beyond basic floor positioning.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 1.0m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 1.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Logged barely enough floor time to break a sweat, resulting in a negligible impact score. He managed a single solid defensive rotation before being subbed back out. Garbage time minutes prevented any real rhythm from being established.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 1.0m -0.5
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Harrison Barnes 36.4m
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite providing excellent weak-side help defense that spiked his defensive metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red. Clunky shot selection in the mid-range stalled out offensive possessions. His veteran positioning on switches was a bright spot in an otherwise uneven shift.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 36.4m -19.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Vassell 35.4m
23
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Aggressive downhill drives and decisive shot-making fueled a massive surge in offensive production. His ability to navigate screens and stay attached to his primary assignment elevated his defensive metrics. Creating separation in isolation during the third quarter showcased his growing offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 35.4m -19.0
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 33.1m
37
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+23.4

Relentless rim pressure and elite point-of-attack defense resulted in a dominant, game-altering impact score. He completely dictated the tempo, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities. His ability to blow by primary defenders in the pick-and-roll broke the opposing scheme entirely.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +25.0
Hustle +5.9
Defense +10.3
Raw total +41.2
Avg player in 33.1m -17.8
Impact +23.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Defensive rotations and active hands on the perimeter drove a strong defensive rating, keeping his overall impact positive. However, settling for contested perimeter jumpers limited his offensive ceiling. A consistent pattern of closing out hard on shooters defined his floor time.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 32.3m -17.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 28.1m
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite rim deterrence and constant activity on the glass generated a highly positive two-way impact. He consistently walled off the paint against driving guards, forcing tough floaters. A few rushed putback attempts were the only slight blemish on a highly efficient interior performance.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 28.1m -15.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
11
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Bully-ball drives and physical rebounding allowed him to leave a solid imprint on the game. He absorbed contact well on the defensive end, holding his ground against larger forwards in the post. A disciplined approach to attacking closeouts ensured his offensive possessions remained productive.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 22.8m -12.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 16.5m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Poor finishing at the basket suppressed his overall score, though he managed to stay positive through disciplined team defense. He struggled to find a rhythm against length, often driving into crowded paint areas. Still, his commitment to fighting over screens kept his defensive impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 16.5m -8.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kelly Olynyk 12.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-IQ positioning and constant communication anchored his positive hustle metrics. He facilitated smoothly from the high post, though passing up open looks limited his scoring threat. Setting bone-crushing screens to free up the guards was the defining feature of his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 12.0m -6.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

A quiet, low-usage shift resulted in a nearly neutral impact score. He stayed within the flow of the offense but failed to generate any meaningful advantages off the dribble. His textbook closeouts on perimeter shooters provided just enough defensive value to keep his head above water.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 8.4m -4.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A disastrous shooting stint at the rim cratered his offensive value during a brief rotation. Forcing wild attempts through traffic negated the positive energy he brought in transition. His inability to finish through contact defined a highly inefficient short shift.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -38.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 7.6m -4.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Empty offensive possessions and a lack of floor spacing dragged his net impact deep into the negative. While he showed flashes of competence as a weak-side helper, his inability to threaten the defense made his team play four-on-five. A pair of hesitant, contested jumpers highlighted his struggles to adapt to the game's pace.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 7.6m -4.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2