GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 38.7m
24
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.3

Heavy playmaking duties resulted in high-value creation, but defensive miscommunications in transition erased those gains. Getting caught out of position on fast breaks ultimately neutralized his otherwise brilliant offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 38.7m -18.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Toumani Camara 35.1m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.7

Relentless activity on the offensive glass and aggressive drives to the rim drove a stellar two-way performance. His ability to convert broken plays into momentum-shifting buckets made him an absolute nightmare for the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +9.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 35.1m -16.7
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 33.6m
18
pts
18
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.7

Complete domination of the painted area dictated the terms of the game and fueled a massive positive impact score. He swallowed up drivers at the rim and generated countless extra possessions through sheer positional superiority.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 33.6m -16.1
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Shaedon Sharpe 31.8m
26
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Explosive shot-making from the perimeter forced the defense into constant rotation, opening up the floor for his teammates. His decisive attacks against closeouts kept the offensive engine humming efficiently throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 31.8m -15.2
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Murray 30.4m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Passive offensive involvement and a failure to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities dragged down his overall rating. He repeatedly passed up quality looks against rotating defenses, stalling possessions and allowing the opposition to reset.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 30.4m -14.5
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Love 28.9m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

A sudden scoring outburst was undermined by poor shot selection and a tendency to force action early in the clock. While he hit some tough contested jumpers, the resulting long rebounds frequently ignited opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 28.9m -13.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Sidy Cissoko 22.4m
0
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite off-ball activity and suffocating perimeter defense completely masked a horrific shooting performance. By generating crucial deflections and blowing up passing lanes, he managed to swing the math in his team's favor despite a complete lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +10.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 22.4m -10.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Hansen Yang 10.6m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Slow processing speed against high-hedging pick-and-roll coverages severely limited his effectiveness. Opponents successfully targeted his lack of lateral quickness, turning his short rotation stint into a clear defensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 10.6m -5.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Disjointed offensive spacing and missed defensive assignments led to a disastrously quick hook from the rotation. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts, bleeding points during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +35.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -2.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.9
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 8.4m -4.1
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 39.9m
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle completely salvaged a rough perimeter shooting night. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs and generate deflections ensured he remained a net positive despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +8.4
Defense +13.2
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 39.9m -19.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.8

Cold perimeter shooting and stalled offensive initiations dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. Even with surprisingly stout perimeter defense, his inability to punish drop coverage severely bottlenecked the second unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.6
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 37.6m -18.0
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 37.0m
37
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

High-volume shot creation carried the offense, though his overall net impact was tempered by defensive lapses in transition. His ability to consistently break down primary defenders in isolation kept the half-court offense afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 14/23 (60.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 37.0m -17.6
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Neemias Queta 29.4m
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Rim protection and active screen-setting drove a positive net rating during his frontcourt minutes. He consistently altered shots in the paint, anchoring the interior defense while generating second-chance opportunities through sheer physicality.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 29.4m -14.1
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jordan Walsh 9.8m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Despite a solid burst of energy on the glass, his brief rotation stint yielded a slightly negative overall impact. Defensive positioning against opposing wings kept him from bleeding points, but his limited offensive involvement capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 9.8m -4.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

An unexpected scoring surge combined with disciplined weak-side rotations fueled a highly productive shift. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns, his timely cuts to the basket provided a crucial spark that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 30.3m -14.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Sam Hauser 19.4m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A failure to space the floor effectively tanked his value, as defenders comfortably sagged off him to clog the paint. While his positional defense remained adequate, the lack of shooting gravity severely disrupted the offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 19.4m -9.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.7

Lethal offensive execution and surprisingly disruptive defensive rotations yielded a massive per-minute impact. He completely dismantled the opposing backcourt during a pivotal second-quarter run, maximizing every second of his limited floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 18.7m -8.9
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 11.0m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive mobility issues in the pick-and-roll were ruthlessly exploited, cratering his brief stint on the floor. Without his usual offensive rhythm to offset the damage, he became a clear target for opposing guards looking to switch.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 11.0m -5.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

High-energy closeouts and loose-ball recoveries allowed him to post a positive impact despite attempting zero shots. He embraced a pure glue-guy role during his short rotation, making the extra rotations that rarely show up in traditional metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 7.0m -3.4
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0