GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 37.5m
32
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+6.0

Thrived as a secondary creator, consistently attacking scrambled defenses and making the right reads in transition. Occasional over-ambitious passes led to empty trips, somewhat muting his otherwise stellar overall impact. Still, his ability to toggle between scoring and facilitating kept the opposing defense in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 37.5m -22.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Toumani Camara 37.3m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Wasted numerous high-value possessions by forcing contested drives into a crowded paint. Despite bringing excellent energy and versatility to the defensive end, his erratic shot selection constantly bailed out the opponent's defense. The offensive inefficiency completely derailed the momentum he built through his hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.3
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 37.3m -21.8
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jerami Grant 36.9m
33
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Carried the offensive load with a steady diet of isolation mismatch hunting that consistently broke down the primary defender. However, his tendency to hold the ball allowed the defense to reset, limiting secondary scoring opportunities for teammates. The sheer volume of his shot-making outweighed his occasional defensive ball-watching.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 36.9m -21.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 33.5m
17
pts
21
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.4

Utterly dominated the painted area by swallowing up driving lanes and ending possessions with authoritative rebounding. His massive screening angles freed up ball-handlers all night, creating a cascading effect of open looks. This was a masterclass in utilizing sheer size and positioning to dictate the terms of engagement on both ends.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +6.1
Defense +9.3
Raw total +41.2
Avg player in 33.5m -19.8
Impact +21.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 22.1m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Offensive hesitancy allowed his defender to roam freely and clog the passing lanes for everyone else. While he competed admirably on the ball and fought over screens, his lack of gravity on the perimeter was a glaring liability. The team essentially played four-on-five offensively during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 22.1m -13.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 35.0m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Bricked multiple wide-open corner looks, which allowed the opposing frontcourt to aggressively trap the pick-and-roll without penalty. He brought commendable grit to the offensive glass, but the spacing issues he created were too severe to ignore. A classic case of defensive effort being undone by offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 35.0m -20.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Caleb Love 18.3m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

Shot the team out of multiple possessions with a string of heavily contested, early-clock jumpers that completely bypassed the offensive system. This reckless shot selection fueled long rebounds and easy transition points for the opposition. Even adequate point-of-attack defense couldn't salvage a disastrous offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.2%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 18.3m -10.7
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Disrupted the offensive rhythm by forcing tough floaters in traffic rather than making the simple extra pass. He showed flashes of active hands on defense, but his poor decision-making with the ball in his hands led to immediate negative swings. Needs to simplify his approach to stay on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 8.7m -5.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Looked overwhelmed by the game's pace, frequently arriving late to his rim-protection assignments. Rushed his offensive touches in the post, leading to low-quality attempts that killed the shot clock. A developmental stint that highlighted his current struggles with NBA-level processing speed.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 7.9m -4.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Duop Reath 2.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Logged only a handful of garbage-time possessions without registering any meaningful statistics. Was caught out of position on one defensive rotation, slightly dinging his overall metric.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.6m -1.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
27
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Anchored the interior with exceptional drop-coverage positioning that completely deterred rim attacks. His ability to stretch the floor as a trailer created massive driving lanes for the guards all night. The combination of elite defensive rebounding and floor-spacing generated a massive positive swing whenever he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +11.0
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 33.6m -19.7
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Josh Giddey 30.9m
9
pts
5
reb
13
ast
Impact
-5.0

Elite playmaking vision was severely undermined by forced passes into traffic that ignited opponent fast breaks. While his rebounding and defensive communication were stellar, the live-ball giveaways proved too costly to overcome. Defenders continually sagged off him, daring him to shoot and effectively neutralizing his driving angles.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +6.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 30.9m -18.1
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Isaac Okoro 25.6m
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Despite efficient perimeter execution, his overall influence plummeted due to off-ball defensive lapses that bled points. The scoring punch was entirely negated by poor closeouts and late rotations that allowed opponents to find a rhythm. A noticeable lack of secondary playmaking further isolated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 25.6m -15.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Huerter 22.6m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Cold perimeter shooting cratered the team's spacing, allowing the defense to aggressively pack the paint. Even though he competed hard defensively through screens, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions tanked his overall value. Opponents completely ignored him on the weak side, stalling multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 22.6m -13.3
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 18.7m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

A low-usage but highly efficient stint kept his head above water, though he struggled to assert himself physically in the paint. His defensive activity, particularly in weak-side help situations, provided just enough value to offset a passive offensive approach. He deferred too often against switching schemes, capping his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.7m -11.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Coby White 27.4m
25
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.0

Punished drop coverages relentlessly with decisive pull-up shooting that kept the defense entirely off-balance. Beyond the scoring, his willingness to dive for loose balls and disrupt passing lanes generated crucial extra possessions. He dictated the offensive flow perfectly while maintaining high-level engagement on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 27.4m -16.2
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Ayo Dosunmu 23.5m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to navigate ball screens, consistently getting caught on picks and forcing teammates into emergency rotations. The offensive efficiency was sharp, but it couldn't mask the bleeding on the other end against quicker guards. His inability to contain dribble penetration ultimately dragged down his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 23.5m -13.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Dalen Terry 16.7m
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.6

Completely changed the game's tempo with relentless point-of-attack defense and disruptive deflections. His high-motor transition runs forced mismatches before the defense could set. By turning defensive stops into immediate offensive advantages, he maximized his value without needing high usage.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +50.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.4
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 16.7m -9.8
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Settled for heavily contested mid-range jumpers instead of attacking closeouts, killing offensive momentum. He offered some resistance on the wing defensively, but his inability to finish through contact inside made him a liability. A lack of aggression on the glass further compounded his negative footprint in a brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 12.8m -7.5
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 11.8m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided a sturdy physical presence in the paint, altering several shots at the rim during a crucial second-quarter stretch. Even with a clunky offensive rhythm, his rim protection and active screen-setting created tangible value. He embraced his role as a defensive anchor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 11.8m -7.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jevon Carter 10.9m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Over-dribbling against set defenses stalled the offensive flow and led to late-clock, low-percentage heaves. While he applied his usual full-court pressure, it rarely resulted in actual stops or turnovers. The lack of offensive creation ultimately made him a net negative during his rotation spot.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 10.9m -6.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Maximized a brief cameo by executing flawless weak-side defensive rotations that blew up two separate baseline drives. He didn't force any action offensively, simply keeping the ball moving and maintaining spacing. A disciplined, mistake-free stint that perfectly stabilized the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +92.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 5.4m -3.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0