GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 38.5m
28
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.7

Took absolute control of the offense by bullying mismatches in the post and finishing through contact. His massive scoring surge was paired with stifling perimeter defense (+7.1 Def), effectively erasing the opponent's primary wing threat. This dominant two-way performance broke him out of a recent slump and stabilized the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.1
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 38.5m -20.2
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 6
23
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.2

Searing perimeter shooting completely broke the opponent's defensive shell. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages with precision, generating an astronomical +21.7 Box score through flawless decision-making. His relentless off-ball movement (+4.6 Hustle) exhausted defenders and drove a spectacular overall impact.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.5%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +4.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 35.0m -18.3
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 34.7m
21
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

A heavy diet of contested mid-range jumpers severely capped his offensive efficiency despite an uptick in volume. While he provided adequate length on defensive switches (+2.8 Def), his isolation-heavy approach disrupted the team's offensive rhythm. The resulting stagnation allowed the opponent to dictate the pace, driving his impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 34.7m -18.2
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jakob Poeltl 26.4m
11
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

Masterful screening and precise rim-runs created wide-open driving lanes for the guards. He maintained his incredible streak of interior efficiency while battling relentlessly for extra possessions (+4.4 Hustle). His disciplined drop coverage anchored the paint and ensured a steady positive margin.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 26.4m -13.8
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja'Kobe Walter 17.8m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

Rushed decisions against closeouts resulted in a string of empty offensive possessions. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards (-0.8 Def) forced the defense into constant rotation, bleeding easy points. A brutal combination of poor shooting and defensive liabilities torpedoed his stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 17.8m -9.4
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 23.2m
3
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.1

Absolute defensive terror at the point of attack (+10.3 Def), completely suffocating opposing ball-handlers. While his offensive execution was abysmal due to forced floaters in traffic, his elite motor (+7.2 Hustle) generated crucial transition opportunities. He literally defended his way to a positive impact despite shooting the team out of several half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +10.3
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 23.2m -12.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Shifted his focus from scoring to facilitating and defensive connectivity (+3.9 Def) when his touches decreased. He made several high-IQ reads out of the high post to keep the offense humming. Proved his versatility by impacting winning even when his recent scoring tear cooled off.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 18.7m -9.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gradey Dick 17.5m
14
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump by utilizing off-ball screens to find clean catches. His sudden resurgence in efficiency punished defenders who tried to cheat into the paint. The renewed confidence completely altered the floor geometry during his minutes, yielding a solid positive margin.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +34.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 17.5m -9.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Continued his remarkable stretch of offensive efficiency by feasting on dump-off passes in the dunker spot. Even with a slight dip in usage, his decisive finishing and solid positional defense (+1.6 Def) kept the second unit thriving. Maximized every second of his court time by playing strictly within his role.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 16.4m -8.6
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Ochai Agbaji 11.8m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Provided sturdy on-ball resistance (+2.9 Def) to stall opponent wing isolations. However, his ongoing offensive struggles allowed his defender to roam freely as a free safety. The inability to knock down open corner looks ultimately dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 11.8m -6.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 37.4m
25
pts
8
reb
14
ast
Impact
-4.0

Heavy playmaking responsibilities yielded mixed results, as his elite distribution was dragged down by forced attempts in traffic. Despite generating massive offensive flow, defensive lapses and inefficient isolation possessions tanked his overall impact (-4.0). His role as the primary initiator created open looks for teammates but exposed his own finishing struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 10/15 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 37.4m -19.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 35.8m
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Elite floor-spacing from the corner completely opened up the half-court offense. He complemented his perimeter barrage with high-motor rotations (+5.5 Hustle) to disrupt passing lanes. This two-way effort perfectly encapsulated his growing role as a premier 3-and-D wing.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 35.8m -18.7
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jerami Grant 32.5m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Excellent shot selection on the perimeter anchored a highly efficient offensive outing. His defensive versatility (+7.1 Def) allowed Portland to seamlessly switch actions on the wing, neutralizing opponent drives. Maintained his recent scoring consistency while elevating his impact through timely closeouts.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.1
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 32.5m -17.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Sidy Cissoko 21.7m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+8.1 Hustle) kept several possessions alive during crucial stretches. Unfortunately, that physical effort was entirely negated by poor offensive execution and missed assignments on the perimeter. He remains a pure energy specialist whose lack of polish severely limits his net utility.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +8.1
Defense -1.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 21.7m -11.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 21.4m
11
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Imposing rim protection (+4.0 Def) deterred multiple drives and forced opponents into low-percentage floaters. He capitalized on second-chance opportunities to surge past his recent scoring averages. Dominating the paint in limited minutes showcased his immense value as a drop-coverage anchor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 21.4m -11.2
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

Aggressive downhill attacks put constant pressure on the rim, forcing the defense into early rotations. He paired this offensive gravity with phenomenal weak-side help (+6.6 Def) to blow up multiple lob attempts. This was a complete two-way masterclass defined by explosive athleticism on both ends.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +6.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 30.4m -15.9
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 26.1m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Passive offensive positioning rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor. He salvaged some value through disciplined closeouts and rotational awareness (+4.7 Def), but his reluctance to shoot allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The lack of offensive aggression ultimately produced a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 26.1m -13.6
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Vertical spacing and flawless finishing around the basket continued his streak of hyper-efficient performances. He locked down the restricted area (+3.6 Def) by altering shots without fouling, acting as a perfect defensive deterrent in his short stint. His ability to execute his exact role without demanding touches drove a solid positive margin.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 16.6m -8.7
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Caleb Love 12.4m
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Errant shot selection from beyond the arc stalled the second unit's momentum. While he showed flashes of scoring aggression compared to recent outings, his inability to convert those looks bled value. Defensive apathy further compounded the damage during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -64.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 12.4m -6.5
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a disjointed first-half stint. A complete lack of statistical production and slow defensive reads (-0.8 Def) led to a quick hook from the coaching staff. Failed to capitalize on his limited opportunity to crack the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -81.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0