GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 42.2m
35
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.6

Slashed through the defense with ruthless efficiency, using his size to finish through contact on repeated downhill drives. The heavy reliance on interior scoring masked a poor night from beyond the arc. His ability to absorb contact and maintain balance in the paint was the defining feature of this highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.2m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 42.2m -21.9
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jerami Grant 40.4m
20
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.4

Forced isolation possessions and a heavy volume of contested perimeter jumpers tanked his overall impact despite decent defensive metrics. He repeatedly stalled the offense by holding the ball too long against set defenses, leading to empty trips. The defensive versatility (+4.9 Def) was entirely undone by his inefficient, high-usage shot profile.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 40.4m -20.8
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Shaedon Sharpe 35.1m
26
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.4

High-volume scoring masked a negative overall impact driven by poor ball security and likely defensive gambles. He hit spectacular shots from the perimeter but gave the value right back by forcing passes into traffic. The discrepancy between his raw production and his negative total score points directly to momentum-killing mistakes in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 35.1m -18.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 35.0m
19
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

A massive offensive breakout fueled by excellent touch around the basket and surprising range from deep. He sealed off smaller defenders with ease, creating high-percentage looks that anchored the half-court offense. However, his overall impact was kept in check by a relatively quiet defensive presence for a player of his stature.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/13 (38.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 35.0m -18.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 46.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Toumani Camara 34.6m
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Off-the-charts energy and relentless offensive rebounding (+9.3 Hustle) drove a highly positive impact score. He created extra possessions through sheer willpower, perfectly complementing his timely perimeter shooting. A few missed rotations on the weak side kept his defensive score slightly negative, but his motor defined the game.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +9.3
Defense -0.4
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 34.6m -17.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 28.6m
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.9

Offensive ineptitude completely derailed his impact, as he repeatedly bricked open looks and short-circuited possessions. While he provided excellent energy on 50/50 balls (+5.9 Hustle), opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint. His inability to punish the defense for sagging off him resulted in a disastrous -10.9 total score.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +5.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 28.6m -14.8
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 17.3m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Smart baseline cuts and solid positional defense (+2.8 Def) allowed him to post a positive impact despite a broken perimeter jumper. He recognized when defenders closed out too hard and effectively countered by attacking the basket. Avoiding costly mistakes and playing within the flow of the offense defined his productive minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 17.3m -8.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Uncharacteristically quiet on the offensive end, breaking a streak of highly efficient finishing around the rim. He still provided solid rim protection (+3.4 Def), altering several shots in the paint during his short stint. Ultimately, the lack of vertical spacing and missed offensive opportunities dragged his score into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 17.2m -8.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Caleb Love 8.7m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Extreme tunnel vision defined his short stint, as he hijacked the offense to launch a barrage of low-percentage shots. The aggressive scoring mentality provided a slight spark but ultimately hurt the team's efficiency due to the poor conversion rate. Zero hustle contributions further highlighted a one-dimensional performance that ended up slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 8.7m -4.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 4.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Struggled to anchor the middle during a very brief stint, bleeding points through poor pick-and-roll coverage. He forced a bad shot on his only offensive touch, failing to capitalize on his limited opportunity. The rapid accumulation of negative value in just four minutes suggests he was heavily targeted defensively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 4.2m -2.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo appearance that offered no time to establish a rhythm. A quick defensive breakdown or a poorly timed foul likely caused the slight negative impact during his single rotation. There was simply not enough court time to generate any meaningful statistical footprint.

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 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 42.8m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Elite defensive positioning (+8.6 Def) and consistent hustle plays kept him highly relevant on the floor despite a surprisingly negative total impact. The heavy minutes load seemed to wear on his perimeter legs, resulting in flat jumpers from deep. His overall score was suppressed by the hidden costs of missed perimeter opportunities and likely rotational breakdowns late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.8m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.6
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 42.8m -22.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 2
S Maxime Raynaud 36.9m
29
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.3

Dominated his individual matchups in the paint to generate a massive positive overall impact. This breakout offensive surge was paired with excellent rim deterrence (+7.0 Def) that completely altered the opponent's shot profile. He established deep post position early and never let the defense recover.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +23.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 36.9m -19.0
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+1.8

Ruthless downhill attacking resulted in a highly efficient offensive showing that broke his recent slump. However, his overall impact was heavily muted by defensive lapses and likely transition turnovers that gave points right back. The sheer volume of paint touches kept the offense humming, even if the margins were thinner than the raw production suggests.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 35.4m -18.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S DeMar DeRozan 34.9m
33
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.1

Masterful shot creation and uncharacteristic perimeter efficiency drove a staggering +19.1 net impact. He systematically dismantled perimeter defenders with his midrange footwork while adding immense value through relentless loose-ball recoveries (+7.1 Hustle). The combination of high-volume scoring and hyper-efficient shot selection made him nearly unguardable.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +7.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +37.1
Avg player in 34.9m -18.0
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

A sharp departure from his recent highly efficient stretch, as poor shot selection around the rim cratered his offensive value. Despite the offensive struggles, he remained highly engaged on the other end with strong weak-side rotations (+3.9 Def). The inability to finish inside ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 14.0m -7.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 32.5m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

An absolute terror at the point of attack, generating a massive +12.7 defensive impact through relentless ball pressure. That elite perimeter containment barely kept his overall score positive, as his shot selection from deep was highly questionable. His willingness to sacrifice his body on screens defined his night, completely overshadowing the clunky offensive output.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +12.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 32.5m -16.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.9

Stagnant offensive initiation and bricked jumpers compounded his ongoing shooting slump, sinking his total impact deep into the red. He struggled to turn the corner against drop coverage, settling for contested looks that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The lack of defensive disruption meant he had no way to offset his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 22.3m -11.6
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Active hands and constant motion (+3.6 Hustle) couldn't save a performance marred by defensive miscommunications. He consistently lost his man off the ball, leading to a negative defensive score that dragged down his overall impact. While he found some success cutting to the basket, the back-end breakdowns were too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 19.9m -10.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Perfect execution in a specialized role allowed him to post a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He capitalized on every roll-man opportunity while providing sturdy interior resistance (+4.0 Def) that derailed opponent drives. This was a textbook example of maximizing a short-shift assignment through high-energy rim-running.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 16.1m -8.3
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Completely ineffective during his brief stint, bleeding value through sluggish pick-and-roll coverage. He passed up open looks and clogged the spacing, severely disrupting the second unit's offensive flow. The inability to protect the paint or stretch the floor made him a massive liability in just ten minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.2
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 10.2m -5.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1