Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
OKC lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
OKC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 177 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Avdija 4/16 -8.3
Love Hard 3/13 -7.2
Hansen Hard 3/11 -4.0
Murray Open 3/9 -5.3
Grant Hard 6/8 +7.3
Rupert Open 4/7 +1.5
Cissoko 3/7 -0.4
Reath 3/7 -1.8
Camara 2/6 -3.1
Clingan Hard 2/5 +0.3

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander 13/18 +7.9
Wallace 3/9 -4.0
Hartenstein Open 3/9 -4.4
Mitchell 8/8 +9.3
Holmgren 2/8 -5.2
Joe Hard 3/7 +0.8
Dort Hard 2/6 -1.0
Dieng Hard 3/5 +2.6
Carlson Hard 3/4 +3.5
Barnhizer 2/3 +1.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
OKC
34/92 Field Goals 45/85
37.0% Field Goal % 52.9%
12/47 3-Pointers 15/36
25.5% 3-Point % 41.7%
15/21 Free Throws 17/23
71.4% Free Throw % 73.9%
46.9% True Shooting % 64.1%
54 Total Rebounds 57
16 Offensive 12
29 Defensive 37
18 Assists 33
1.06 Assist/TO Ratio 2.36
16 Turnovers 14
8 Steals 9
4 Blocks 8
19 Fouls 23
40 Points in Paint 58
13 Fast Break Pts 11
11 Points off TOs 28
8 Second Chance Pts 18
44 Bench Points 61
4 Largest Lead 36
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
37 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 30.0 MIN
+40.32
2
Ajay Mitchell
20 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 23.6 MIN
+20.25
3
Jerami Grant
21 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 24.2 MIN
+15.21
4
Branden Carlson
8 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 8.6 MIN
+9.33
5
Toumani Camara
4 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 26.6 MIN
+9.05
6
Kris Murray
9 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 27.1 MIN
+8.8
7
Duop Reath
6 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 19.5 MIN
+8.22
8
Alex Caruso
5 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 14.2 MIN
+7.33
9
Cason Wallace
7 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 26.8 MIN
+6.86
10
Rayan Rupert
10 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 15.8 MIN
+6.8
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:23 J. Cooke 25' 3PT step back (3 PTS) 95–122
Q4 0:31 B. Barnhizer cutting DUNK (5 PTS) (B. Carlson 2 AST) 92–122
Q4 0:43 C. Love driving finger roll Layup (8 PTS) 92–120
Q4 0:50 Yang REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 90–120
Q4 0:53 MISS I. Joe 24' 3PT 90–120
Q4 1:04 R. Rupert 25' 3PT pullup (10 PTS) 90–120
Q4 1:10 R. Rupert REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 87–120
Q4 1:14 MISS C. Youngblood 3PT 87–120
Q4 1:23 I. Joe STEAL (1 STL) 87–120
Q4 1:23 J. Cooke lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 87–120
Q4 1:27 D. Reath STEAL (2 STL) 87–120
Q4 1:27 I. Joe bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 87–120
Q4 1:46 D. Reath driving finger roll Layup (6 PTS) (J. Cooke 2 AST) 87–120
Q4 1:58 B. Carlson 26' 3PT (8 PTS) (C. Youngblood 2 AST) 85–120
Q4 2:04 B. Carlson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 85–117

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
37
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+46.5

Surgical precision in isolation and flawless decision-making drove an astronomically high impact score. He systematically dismantled the opposing defense by exploiting drop coverage with his lethal midrange pull-up throughout the third quarter. Constant rim pressure collapsed the defense, while active hands in the passing lanes fueled crucial transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +33.3
Creation +4.4
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 26.8m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

A failure to punish defensive rotations from the perimeter ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative. Opponents dared him to shoot by aggressively helping off him, which bogged down the team's half-court spacing. His tenacious on-ball pressure and screen navigation mitigated the damage but couldn't entirely offset the offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 25.4m
5
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Elite rim protection was completely undone by an uncharacteristically passive and inefficient offensive showing. He was repeatedly pushed off his spots by more physical interior defenders, resulting in off-balance attempts and disrupted offensive flow. The massive defensive metrics from altering shots at the basket barely kept his rating from plummeting further.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +11.4
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
7
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Dominant interior positioning and elite drop-coverage execution anchored a highly positive impact score. He completely neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack during the second quarter by perfectly timing his contests at the rim. Hard screens and relentless offensive rebounding created vital extra possessions that didn't show up in his personal scoring column.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +12.9
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 20.5m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Clunky perimeter execution dragged down his rating despite his usual physical defensive presence. He short-circuited several possessions by forcing contested outside looks early in the shot clock against set defenses. While he successfully bullied ball-handlers on the perimeter, the offensive inefficiency outweighed the stops.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 23.8m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Rushed perimeter attempts against heavy closeouts prevented him from finding a positive rhythm. The offense stalled when he failed to capitalize on the gravity of his teammates, missing crucial momentum-shifting looks from deep. Although his off-ball defensive chasing was solid, the missed spacing opportunities proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
20
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.0

Flawless shot selection and an aggressive downhill mentality fueled a massive positive impact off the bench. He consistently beat primary defenders off the dribble, collapsing the paint and finishing through contact with remarkable efficiency. Smart defensive gambles and timely stunts further amplified his dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Timely weak-side cuts and efficient spot-up shooting kept his impact perfectly neutral. He capitalized on defensive over-helps, punishing the opposition when left unattended on the perimeter. However, a lack of physical resistance on the defensive glass prevented him from pushing his rating higher.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 14.2m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

Textbook connective passing and opportunistic cutting allowed him to post a solid positive rating in limited action. He greased the wheels of the offense by making quick, decisive reads against scrambling defenses. His trademark point-of-attack disruption forced several key resets that stifled the opponent's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +78.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.7

Defensive lapses in space and a lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a net-negative stint. He was consistently a step slow on closeouts, allowing opposing stretch bigs to find a rhythm from beyond the arc. A failure to establish deep post position rendered him a non-factor in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Instant floor-spacing from the frontcourt completely altered the geometry of the defense during his brief stint. He punished the opponent's drop coverage by confidently stepping into trailing perimeter looks in transition. Solid verticality at the rim ensured he wasn't a liability on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Smart off-ball relocation and a refusal to force the issue resulted in a slightly positive cameo. He found soft spots in the zone defense, converting his limited touches with high efficiency. Staying attached to his man through off-ball screens ensured the defensive integrity remained intact while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

A complete lack of offensive rhythm and poor spacing awareness led to a sharp negative rating in limited minutes. He clogged driving lanes by failing to space the floor properly, leading to stagnant possessions. Defensive miscommunications in transition further compounded a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Sidy Cissoko 26.9m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

A severe lack of defensive engagement and off-ball activity resulted in a heavily negative overall rating. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, consistently losing his man on backdoor cuts during a disastrous third-quarter stretch. The slight uptick in scoring efficiency couldn't offset the bleeding on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Toumani Camara 26.6m
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Relentless energy plays completely overshadowed a quiet scoring night to drive a strong positive rating. His massive hustle metrics stemmed from diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes during a critical second-half stretch. Elite point-of-attack defense masked the offensive drop-off and kept the opposing backcourt out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 24.2m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

High-quality shot selection fueled a highly efficient offensive outing that anchored his positive impact. He capitalized on favorable perimeter matchups, punishing late closeouts to generate clean looks. Defensive rotations were timely enough to preserve the value of his scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -58.6
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +19.5
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Deni Avdija 23.8m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

An abysmal shooting performance cratered his net impact, as he repeatedly settled for contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of empty possessions negated his genuinely disruptive off-ball defensive rotations. Forcing isolation drives into heavy traffic compounded the damage by triggering opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 19.8m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Despite decent rim protection and activity on the glass, offensive limitations dragged his overall rating into the red. He struggled to finish through contact against bulkier interior matchups, leaving valuable points on the floor. A few ill-advised perimeter attempts further diluted his otherwise solid defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +9.2
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Kris Murray 27.1m
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Perimeter shooting woes and stagnant off-ball movement suppressed what could have been a positive outing. Opponents sagged off him on the perimeter, completely bogging down the team's half-court spacing during crucial fourth-quarter possessions. While his help-side defensive rotations were sharp, the offensive spacing issues proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Love 25.8m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Horrendous shot selection and a complete inability to find a rhythm resulted in a team-worst impact score. He hijacked the offense with deep, contested pull-ups that essentially functioned as live-ball turnovers. A glaring lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack only magnified the damage from his offensive black hole.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Duop Reath 19.5m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Settling for outside pick-and-pop looks rather than rolling to the rim neutralized his overall effectiveness. His inability to connect from deep allowed the opposing frontcourt to pack the paint and stifle driving lanes. Strong interior positioning on defense managed to keep him hovering right around a neutral rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -41.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Hansen Yang 17.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

A heavy volume of forced interior shots nearly derailed his impact, but relentless effort plays salvaged a neutral rating. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities by outworking his matchup on the offensive glass. Solid rim deterrence partially masked the inefficiency of his post-up attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 15.8m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Opportunistic scoring within the flow of the offense allowed him to post a marginally positive impact. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating perfectly along the baseline for clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. Active hands in the passing lanes provided just enough defensive value to keep his rating above water.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Minimal offensive involvement and a tendency to float on the perimeter led to a negative overall score. He struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, frequently leaving shooters open during a rough first-half stint. The lack of assertiveness on both ends made him a net minus during his floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1