GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 39.0m
27
pts
9
reb
11
ast
Impact
-4.6

Despite gaudy playmaking numbers, a brutal string of live-ball turnovers in traffic completely tanked his net impact. He repeatedly forced difficult passes into tight pick-and-roll windows, sparking opponent fast breaks. Clanking five attempts from deep further neutralized the value of his otherwise solid defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 39.0m -21.7
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Shaedon Sharpe 33.1m
24
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

A heavy diet of contested midrange pull-ups dragged down his offensive efficiency, requiring massive volume to generate his scoring output. Fortunately, his locked-in point-of-attack defense and active hands in the passing lanes salvaged his overall impact. He consistently fought over screens, making life miserable for the opposing backcourt to offset his erratic shot chart.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.1m -18.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 28.8m
18
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.6

Utterly dominated the interior with highly efficient finishing, punishing mismatches on the block all night. Stepping out to knock down a pair of trail threes added a lethal layer to his offensive profile that broke the opposing scheme. His massive frame completely walled off the paint, driving a stellar two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +22.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 28.8m -16.0
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 54.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Toumani Camara 25.4m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Excellent spot-up shooting and high-motor effort plays kept his baseline value afloat despite a dip in overall usage. He consistently made the extra rotation on defense, though he occasionally struggled to contain quicker guards on the perimeter. Crashing from the corners generated crucial second-chance opportunities that balanced out his defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 25.4m -14.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 21.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall impact, wasting multiple offensive possessions. He showed great energy on 50/50 balls to boost his hustle metrics, but it couldn't offset the bricked jumpers. Opponents actively sagged off him, bogging down the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Caleb Love 34.3m
24
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Catching fire from behind the arc completely transformed the offense, punishing defenders for going under dribble hand-offs. His lethal floor spacing opened up driving lanes for everyone else, driving a highly positive box score impact. He managed to survive defensively by staying disciplined on closeouts, securing a strong overall grade.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 34.3m -19.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 27.7m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Poor spatial awareness on the defensive end allowed his man to consistently back-cut for easy layups, heavily dragging down his rating. While he managed a few timely buckets in transition, his half-court offensive execution was marred by sloppy ball security. The negative swings from his unforced errors easily erased his modest scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 27.7m -15.5
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Elite shot selection and flawless execution as a lob threat maximized his value in limited minutes. He anchored the second-unit defense beautifully, using his wingspan to alter shots at the rim without fouling. A disciplined approach to his role ensured every shift was a net positive for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 19.8m -11.0
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Hansen Yang 10.0m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Looked completely out of sync during his brief stint, rushing his attempts and failing to establish deep post position. His inability to secure defensive rebounds against smaller matchups gave away crucial extra possessions. The game simply moved too fast for him in this outing, resulting in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 10.0m -5.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 35.5m
15
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.3

A brutal shooting night from the perimeter severely dragged down his overall impact, as he forced contested looks against set defenses. Despite the offensive struggles, his elite weak-side rim protection and relentless activity on the glass kept the defensive metrics highly positive. The heavy volume of missed jumpers ultimately outweighed his exceptional hustle.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense +10.4
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 35.5m -19.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S P.J. Washington 29.3m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Passive offensive involvement limited his ability to positively influence the game, yielding a negative overall score despite solid defensive rotations. He frequently passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities on the wing, stalling the half-court offense. His perimeter closeouts were sharp, but the lack of scoring punch left a noticeable void.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 29.3m -16.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Max Christie 28.7m
25
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.9

Blistering perimeter efficiency fueled an outstanding overall rating, punishing defenders who went under screens. His shot preparation was flawless during a crucial second-half stretch, turning drive-and-kick sequences into immediate points. The sheer volume of high-value outside makes completely tilted the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 28.7m -16.1
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Daniel Gafford 25.6m
17
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.7

Dominant interior finishing and vertical spacing drove a massive positive impact score. He consistently punished defensive miscommunications out of the pick-and-roll, converting high-percentage lob attempts. His interior presence anchored the drop coverage beautifully, deterring drives and cleaning up the glass.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 25.6m -14.3
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Ryan Nembhard 17.1m
0
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.9

Empty offensive possessions and an inability to break down his primary defender resulted in a cratered impact score. He repeatedly stalled the offense by dribbling into traffic without a clear exit strategy. Failing to register any meaningful hustle stats further compounded his negative footprint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 17.1m -9.5
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.1

An absolute force in transition, his elite hustle metrics and hyper-efficient finishing drove a spectacular overall grade. He relentlessly pressured the rim off live rebounds, catching the defense backpedaling time and again. This downhill aggression completely dictated the tempo and maximized his on-court value.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +8.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 30.4m -16.9
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Relentless slashing and transition opportunism kept his offensive metrics highly favorable. He consistently attacked closeouts with purpose, generating high-quality looks at the rim through sheer physicality. Combined with active loose-ball recoveries, his two-way effort translated to a steady positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 29.3m -16.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers yielded mixed efficiency, capping his offensive ceiling. However, his veteran positioning in team defensive concepts helped suppress opponent scoring runs. Navigating off-ball screens effectively kept his gravity high, even when the shots weren't falling at an elite clip.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 19.2m -10.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a stabilizing, low-mistake presence in his limited minutes, staying strictly within his role as a screener. Hard rolls to the rim successfully collapsed the defense to create corner spacing, even when he didn't get the touch. Active hands in the passing lanes generated just enough defensive value to keep his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.3%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 17.8m -10.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Barely saw the floor enough to leave a statistical footprint, playing a strictly connective role. He executed a flawless backdoor cut for a quick bucket but otherwise blended into the background. A lack of defensive counting stats kept his overall rating hovering right at neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.3m -4.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0