GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 39.1m
41
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Relentless downhill attacking generated a massive +21.2 box impact, overwhelming the defense with sheer volume and physicality. Exploiting mismatches in transition defined his night, allowing him to bypass his struggles from beyond the arc. Solid defensive rebounding and versatility on the wing ensured his career-scoring night resulted in winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 39.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 39.1m -18.6
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Toumani Camara 38.8m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.8

An absolutely monstrous +16.9 hustle score drove a game-changing performance defined by pure effort. Winning 50/50 balls and executing flawless weak-side rotations completely derailed the opponent's offensive rhythm. This elite blue-collar work, combined with opportunistic cutting, resulted in a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +16.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +36.3
Avg player in 38.8m -18.5
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.5m
20
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Empty-calorie scoring masked a highly detrimental impact score, largely driven by poor shot selection and a lack of rebounding. Settling for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than pressuring the rim bailed out the defense repeatedly. Despite decent defensive metrics, his inability to secure loose balls or create for others left the team vulnerable during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 34.5m -16.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 31.3m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

Imposing drop-coverage defense (+7.3) and highly efficient rim-running fueled a breakout two-way performance. Altering shots at the basket consistently forced the opposition into late-clock bailouts. His ability to finish cleanly through contact capitalized on the gravity of his guards, maximizing his offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 31.3m -14.9
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 16.3m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Offensive passivity and poor finishing cratered his net impact during a rough rotation stint. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes for the primary creators. A lack of defensive playmaking meant he offered no secondary value to offset the offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 16.3m -7.8
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 28.5m
10
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.2

Highly inefficient volume shooting torpedoed his overall impact despite decent defensive engagement. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock repeatedly killed offensive momentum and fueled opponent transition opportunities. While he showed flashes of secondary playmaking, the sheer number of empty possessions dictated the negative rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 28.5m -13.6
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Rayan Rupert 17.5m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Strong point-of-attack defense (+4.7) nearly salvaged an otherwise invisible offensive outing. Navigating screens effectively to bother opposing guards highlighted his value on the less glamorous end of the floor. However, his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely roam, slightly dragging down his overall net score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 17.5m -8.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Elite rim deterrence (+5.5) kept his impact positive despite a very low-usage offensive role. Acting as a pure lob threat and defensive anchor, he altered the geometry of the court without needing touches. Continuing his trend of hyper-efficient finishing, he maximized the few opportunities he was given around the basket.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 17.5m -8.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Hansen Yang 16.5m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.5

Struggling with the game's pace led to disjointed offensive possessions and a steep negative impact. Being a step slow on defensive rotations allowed opponents to generate high-quality looks at the rim. His inability to establish deep post position neutralized his typical efficiency advantages.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 16.5m -7.9
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.0m
24
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.6

Slashing to the rim with elite burst drove a stellar +17.1 box impact, continuing a trend of highly efficient interior finishing. His point-of-attack defense disrupted opposing ball-handlers, adding significant value on the less glamorous end of the floor. The combination of downhill aggression and defensive versatility cemented him as a primary catalyst.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 39.0m -18.4
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 37.4m
37
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.7

Elite shot creation fueled a massive +19.4 box impact, carrying the offensive load with a high-volume scoring barrage. Generating clean looks out of isolation defined his night, forcing defensive rotations that opened the floor. Solid positional defense ensured his scoring explosion wasn't given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 14/26 (53.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 37.4m -17.7
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Severe perimeter shooting struggles tanked his overall impact despite highly disruptive defensive metrics (+8.3). Settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts resulted in empty possessions that stalled offensive momentum. His length bothered opponents on the perimeter, but the offensive crater was too deep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 36.7m -17.4
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tari Eason 31.0m
15
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Relentless motor and high-level hustle (+4.2) salvaged a neutral impact score on a night where his finishing around the rim was erratic. Forcing the issue in traffic led to a high volume of missed shots, dragging down his offensive efficiency. However, his ability to generate extra possessions through sheer effort balanced the scales.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.0%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.0m -14.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Steven Adams 30.1m
7
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.5

Dominant interior positioning and elite screen-setting generated a massive total impact without needing high usage. Controlling the painted area through physical box-outs neutralized the opponent's interior attack, reflected in his stellar +9.4 defensive score. He served as the ultimate connective piece, creating second-chance opportunities that kept possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +9.4
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 30.1m -14.3
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc severely limited his effectiveness, resulting in a steep drop-off from his usual production. Rushing perimeter attempts against tight closeouts short-circuited offensive sets. While his defensive positioning was adequate, the sheer volume of wasted possessions dictated the negative total score.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 21.6m -10.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Getting targeted on defensive switches led to a negative defensive score that compounded his offensive invisibility. A failure to knock down open spot-up looks allowed the defense to aggressively help off him. This two-way ineffectiveness created a significant drag on the team's spacing and structural integrity.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.4
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 14.4m -6.8
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Okogie 12.9m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite activity levels yielded a +5.0 hustle score, proving his value entirely outside of scoring. Chasing down loose balls and executing timely rotations defined his brief stint on the floor. This high-energy defensive role perfectly masked his complete lack of offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 12.9m -6.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 12.3m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Vertical spacing and rim deterrence provided a steady positive impact during limited minutes. Anchoring the drop coverage effectively forced opponents into low-percentage mid-range attempts. He played within himself, focusing purely on rim protection and rebounding to ensure a net-positive shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 12.3m -5.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A negligible impact score accurately reflects a quick, uneventful stint where he struggled to integrate into the flow of the game. Failing to generate any downhill pressure left the offense stagnant during his minutes. He essentially provided a warm body without moving the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 4.7m -2.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0