GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 36.2m
33
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Relentless offensive aggression paid off, as he shouldered a massive scoring load to break well past his recent averages. The sheer volume of his attacks offset some perimeter inefficiency, while active defensive hands (+5.0) solidified a positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 36.2m -20.5
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jrue Holiday 35.5m
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.2

A catastrophic perimeter shooting slump cratered his overall value, as empty possessions piled up from deep. Failing to convert on standard looks stalled the offense entirely, overshadowing his usually reliable point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 35.5m -20.4
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 34.2m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Elite hustle metrics (+8.9) were completely undone by a disastrous shot profile that featured far too many forced looks from deep. Chucking from beyond the arc disrupted the offensive flow, negating the value of his otherwise stellar defensive work rate.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +8.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 34.2m -19.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Shaedon Sharpe 27.9m
23
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Overcame a frigid night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking the paint and generating high-value defensive stops (+8.2). His ability to pivot away from a broken perimeter jumper and impact the game through athleticism and hustle drove a highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 27.9m -16.0
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 17.5m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Struggled to establish any interior presence, seeing his offensive involvement plummet compared to recent outings. A lack of assertiveness in the paint allowed the opposition to dictate the physical terms of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 17.5m -10.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jerami Grant 30.9m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.3

Hidden negative plays likely dragged down an otherwise highly efficient shooting night. Despite picking his spots well and converting at a high clip, costly mistakes in possession management or foul trouble ultimately tipped his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 30.9m -17.6
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Kris Murray 22.6m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A low-impact rotational shift was marred by an inability to stretch the floor from deep. While he provided adequate defensive resistance (+4.6), his lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to clog the driving lanes for primary creators.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 22.6m -13.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Flawless execution around the basket maximized his limited floor time, continuing a steady trend of hyper-efficient interior finishing. He played his role perfectly, avoiding mistakes and capitalizing on every dump-off pass or lob opportunity.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 14.5m -8.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 13.8m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Made the absolute most of a short stint by playing mistake-free basketball and converting his rare offensive touches. Excellent defensive positioning and timely hustle plays (+3.6) sparked a massive positive swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 13.8m -7.9
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 6.8m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

A brief and entirely ineffective cameo where he failed to generate any positive momentum. Unable to find the mark on his limited attempts, his presence on the floor was a net negative for the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 6.8m -3.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Rui Hachimura 37.6m
28
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

An aggressive scoring surge fueled a highly positive overall impact, capitalizing on high-percentage looks to shatter his recent averages. His defensive engagement (+4.5) ensured that his elite shot-making translated directly to winning basketball rather than empty calories.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 37.6m -21.5
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jake LaRavia 36.5m
11
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.3

Exceptional defensive activity and high-motor hustle plays (+5.0) kept his head above water despite a completely flat perimeter stroke. He essentially traded offensive spacing for gritty rotational defense, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 36.5m -20.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 31.9m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.4

A brutal shooting night completely torpedoed his value, as clanking perimeter jumpers actively harmed the offense's rhythm. While his trademark defensive tenacity and elite hustle metrics (+6.9) were present, they simply couldn't compensate for the sheer volume of wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +6.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 31.9m -18.2
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
S Deandre Ayton 30.6m
29
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.6

Complete interior dominance dictated the flow of the game, as he converted highly efficient looks around the rim to sustain a massive offensive rating. This physically imposing performance extended a streak of hyper-efficient shooting, making him an unsolvable matchup in the paint.

Shooting
FG 14/19 (73.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +26.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 30.6m -17.4
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Dalton Knecht 23.0m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Perimeter inefficiency dragged down his overall rating despite decent interior finishing. Blanking from beyond the arc stalled offensive momentum during his shifts, neutralizing his otherwise passable hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 23.0m -13.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.5

Scorching perimeter execution defined this outing, spacing the floor perfectly and punishing defensive lapses from deep. The sheer efficiency of his shot selection drove a massive box score impact, making him a lethal weapon during his floor time.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 26.9m -15.3
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Total offensive passivity severely limited his effectiveness, allowing defenders to completely ignore him in the half-court. Even with strong defensive rotations and solid hustle (+3.1), playing 4-on-5 offensively dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 21.2m -12.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Bronny James 19.5m
5
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.8

Low offensive usage and a lack of shot creation resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint. He managed the game safely and contributed minor hustle plays, but ultimately failed to tilt the scales in either direction during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 19.5m -11.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 12.9m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A steep drop in usage from his recent tear rendered him practically invisible during his brief stint on the floor. He converted his few opportunities efficiently, but simply didn't generate enough volume or defensive disruption to leave a meaningful mark.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 12.9m -7.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0