GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 30.4m
15
pts
8
reb
13
ast
Impact
-13.0

Elite connective playmaking kept the offense churning, but his complete inability to space the floor allowed defenders to sag heavily into the paint. This lack of shooting gravity clogged driving lanes, ultimately suffocating the team's half-court execution. A negative defensive score (-0.6) further compounded the damage, as he struggled to contain straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -47.2
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 30.4m -18.2
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Toumani Camara 26.4m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

A disastrous shot selection profile torpedoed his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock. While his elite hustle (+4.8) and defensive disruption (+3.6) kept him engaged, the offensive inefficiency was simply too much to overcome. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, and his inability to punish them stalled the entire half-court scheme.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -64.5
+/- -37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 26.4m -15.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jrue Holiday 25.3m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

High-level shotmaking from the perimeter generated a strong offensive rating, yet his overall impact inexplicably hovered in the red. The negative total suggests he likely bled points in transition or struggled navigating off-ball screens defensively. He capitalized on his own looks but couldn't consistently organize the team's broader defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -46.0
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 25.3m -15.2
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jerami Grant 24.9m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.1

Extreme offensive passivity from a primary option crippled the starting unit's spacing and flow. He completely abandoned the three-point line, allowing his defender to pack the paint and disrupt driving lanes for teammates. This lack of scoring gravity, combined with uninspired weak-side defense, resulted in a severely damaging overall shift.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -64.4
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 24.9m -14.9
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 18.7m
15
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.9

Completely inverted the floor by stepping out to hit multiple trail threes, pulling the opposing rim protector away from the basket. His massive defensive presence (+6.1) locked down the paint, deterring drivers and altering the geometry of the opponent's offense. This rare combination of stretch-big shooting and elite drop coverage fueled a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 18.7m -11.2
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

Severe struggles finishing through contact inside the arc derailed his offensive efficiency, negating a surprisingly competent perimeter shooting night. His inability to pressure the rim effectively bailed out the defense and stalled offensive momentum. Compounding the issue, poor screen navigation on the defensive end (-1.1) allowed opposing guards to generate clean looks.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -63.3
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 21.0m -12.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities to provide a decent offensive punch, but his impact was entirely one-sided. A lack of physical engagement and slow defensive rotations allowed opponents to exploit his matchups on the perimeter. He scored capably but gave up too much ground on the other end to swing the game positively.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 17.0m -10.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 16.4m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Operated as an absolute zero on the offensive end, failing to register a single point while actively shrinking the floor for his teammates. He salvaged his minutes purely through tenacious point-of-attack defense (+6.4), locking down his primary assignments on the perimeter. Ultimately, the offensive handicap was too severe for his defensive heroics to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 16.4m -9.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Wreaked absolute havoc in the passing lanes, generating an elite defensive score (+6.8) through relentless ball pressure and deflections. However, his offensive limitations were glaring, as bricked wide-open corner threes allowed the opposing defense to play five-on-four. His world-class disruption was nearly entirely offset by his inability to punish defensive sagging.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 12.7m -7.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Blake Wesley 12.0m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Struggled to find a rhythm as a primary ball-handler, frequently stalling the offense with indecisive reads and poor spacing. He managed to apply solid pressure defensively (+3.1), fighting through screens to bother opposing guards. However, his inability to bend the defense on drives left his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 12.0m -7.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Anchored the second unit with elite rim deterrence, utilizing his massive wingspan to shut down the paint (+4.6 defense). He functioned purely as a lob threat and screener on offense, rarely touching the ball but consistently freeing up ball-handlers. This defensive-first approach yielded a steady, positive shift despite zero scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -63.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 11.9m -7.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Floated aimlessly through his rotation minutes, failing to attempt a single field goal or assert any offensive pressure. This extreme passivity forced teammates into late-clock isolation situations, dragging down the unit's overall efficiency. His defensive presence was merely adequate, doing little to stem the negative momentum of his shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 9.3m -5.7
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Rushed his looks around the basket, squandering valuable paint touches with off-balance attempts against set defenders. While he offered some resistance as a drop defender (+2.8), his offensive clunkiness disrupted the second unit's flow. The inability to finish through contact defined a highly inefficient cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 30.1%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -66.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 8.3m -5.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Forced the issue during a brief garbage-time appearance, chucking up multiple contested jumpers early in the shot clock. This poor shot selection instantly killed offensive momentum and fueled opponent transition opportunities. He failed to leverage his athleticism defensively, resulting in a sharply negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 5.8m -3.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 29.4m
32
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+20.6

Absolute offensive mastery defined this performance, with hyper-efficient shot selection punishing every defensive coverage thrown his way. Beyond the scoring gravity, his positional defense (+8.9) quietly choked off driving lanes and forced opponents into low-percentage looks. The sheer volume of high-value possessions he created anchored the team's entire scheme.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +28.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +8.9
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 29.4m -17.5
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

A heavy diet of successful two-point attempts fueled a strong offensive rating, though his struggles from beyond the arc capped his overall ceiling. His defensive rotations were adequate but rarely disruptive, keeping his total impact grounded. He thrived mostly as a secondary slasher attacking closeouts against bent defenses.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +71.6
+/- +48
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 29.3m -17.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 26.9m
11
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.4

Highly efficient shot selection yielded a strong box score metric, yet his overall impact inexplicably slipped into the negative. This discrepancy points to struggles navigating screens defensively, allowing his matchups to generate high-value looks. He capitalized on his offensive touches but gave too much back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +65.5
+/- +39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 26.9m -16.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 26.7m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.4

Elite defensive metrics (+9.6) and relentless off-ball activity drove his massive positive impact despite a relatively quiet shooting night. He consistently blew up opponent actions on the perimeter, generating transition opportunities through deflections. The high hustle score (+4.2) highlights his willingness to do the dirty work that keeps possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.6
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 26.7m -16.0
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 25.3m
25
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.3

An exclusive, high-volume perimeter attack completely warped the opposing defense, as every single one of his field goal attempts came from beyond the arc. This elite floor spacing generated a massive offensive rating while opening up the paint for teammates. Solid point-of-attack defense (+4.1) ensured his shooting barrage translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +66.6
+/- +39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 25.3m -15.2
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Relentless activity on the glass and loose balls fueled a strong hustle score (+3.9), keeping possessions alive for the second unit. However, his overall impact dipped slightly into the red due to defensive breakdowns in transition. Despite perfect perimeter efficiency, he struggled to contain dribble penetration when switched onto quicker guards.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +46.6
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 29.9m -18.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Bruce Brown 19.6m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

A lack of offensive aggression severely limited his utility, as he frequently passed up open looks and stagnated the half-court flow. While his defensive positioning remained sound (+3.1), his inability to pressure the rim allowed the opposing defense to ignore him. The resulting spacing issues dragged down his overall net impact during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 19.6m -11.8
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Instant offense off the catch drove a highly efficient stint, punishing defensive lapses with quick-trigger perimeter shooting. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics (+5.5) suggest he was locked in on his assignments and effectively contested looks on the wing. He maximized his limited minutes by decisively attacking closeouts without over-dribbling.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 18.5m -11.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Poor finishing around the basket dragged down his offensive value, wasting several high-leverage paint touches. He failed to establish deep post position against smaller defenders, settling for contested hooks that bailed out the opposition. A lack of rim protection on the other end compounded the inefficiency, resulting in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 11.7m -7.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 8.3m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Invisible on the offensive end, he functioned strictly as a placeholder during his brief rotation minutes. He provided adequate energy in pick-and-roll coverage (+1.4 defense), but his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to roam freely. The inability to command attention ultimately stalled the offense while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +66.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 8.3m -5.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
KJ Simpson 7.4m
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Operated as a steady game manager during a brief rotational cameo, prioritizing ball security over aggressive playmaking. He successfully initiated the offense without forcing the issue, though his point-of-attack defense was slightly porous. Ultimately, he ate minutes effectively without shifting the game's momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +82.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 7.4m -4.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

An explosive burst of offensive aggression defined this micro-stint, as he relentlessly attacked the rim the moment he checked in. He paired this scoring punch with surprisingly stout interior defense (+3.4), altering several shots around the basket. His ability to instantly match the game's physicality yielded a highly productive run.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +96.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 6.9m -4.2
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1