GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jerami Grant 32.0m
21
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency, driven by elite hustle metrics and suffocating perimeter defense. He punished defensive rotations by knocking down high-leverage perimeter shots at a blistering rate. His ability to consistently blow up dribble hand-offs on one end and space the floor on the other defined the starting unit's success.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +6.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 32.0m -17.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Toumani Camara 28.3m
7
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

Offensive struggles completely cratered his value, as a barrage of clanked perimeter shots derailed multiple possessions. Even with solid defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips dragged his net impact to a team-worst rating. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, clogging the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 28.3m -15.8
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 25.4m
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Lethal shot-making from beyond the arc punished every defensive mistake, driving a massive box score impact. He controlled the tempo perfectly, rarely forcing action and capitalizing on defensive breakdowns. His steady point-of-attack pressure kept the opposing backcourt out of rhythm all night.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 25.4m -14.1
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Deni Avdija 24.6m
18
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.4

High-level playmaking and versatile defense completely overshadowed a wildly inefficient shooting performance. He forced the issue too often in the paint, but his ability to read help defenders and spray passes to open shooters kept the offense humming. Acting as the primary connective tissue, his transition pushes consistently caught the defense sleeping.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 24.6m -13.7
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 23.7m
9
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Anchored the paint with an imposing defensive presence, altering numerous shots at the rim that don't show up in standard box scores. He generated crucial second-chance opportunities through relentless interior hustle. His vertical spacing and screen-setting consistently freed up the guards for clean looks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 23.7m -13.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
28
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.0

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by relentless downhill attacks and vastly improved finishing at the rim. He dictated the terms of engagement on every possession, blending aggressive drives with timely perimeter shot-making to post a staggering net impact. His ability to consistently collapse the defense and make the right read broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +48.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 26.3m -14.7
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

A disastrous perimeter shooting display completely short-circuited the team's half-court spacing. While he worked hard to navigate screens and provide solid perimeter defense, the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome. Defenders aggressively sagged off him, effectively turning half-court sets into a handicapped struggle.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 22.2m -12.3
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Flawless execution as a roll man generated a massive offensive boost, punishing switches with elite finishing around the basket. He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient performances by strictly taking high-percentage looks at the rim. The constant lob threat he provided forced opposing bigs to drop deep, opening up the mid-range for his guards.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +71.4
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 20.2m -11.2
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kris Murray 16.5m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Floated through his minutes without leaving any tangible imprint on the game's momentum. A passive offensive approach combined with slightly negative defensive metrics resulted in a steady bleed of points while he was on the floor. He failed to assert himself on the glass or challenge closeouts, rendering his minutes largely hollow.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 16.5m -9.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Provided his usual disruptive defensive presence during a brief stint, blowing up a few perimeter actions. However, his complete refusal to look at the basket allowed the defense to play free safety. The total lack of offensive gravity made it impossible to keep him on the floor for extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 7.7m -4.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Looked completely lost during a brief rotational appearance, failing to execute offensive sets. He offered no resistance or disruption on the defensive end, allowing opponents to easily bypass him. The inability to process the game at NBA speed was glaring during his short time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by immediately attacking the paint and drawing contact. He held his ground defensively and executed his assignments without making rookie mistakes. This brief burst of efficient, mistake-free basketball yielded a surprisingly high positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Rushed his offensive reads during a short stint, resulting in forced shots and empty trips. He was a step slow defensively, getting beat off the dribble and compromising the team's shell. The erratic decision-making quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 4.2m -2.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 32.3m
22
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

A heavy diet of missed perimeter shots capped his offensive ceiling and dragged his net impact into the negative. He generated solid defensive value by contesting shots in the paint, but the empty possessions from outside stalled the offense. His role as the primary initiator forced him into contested mid-range looks that failed to yield points.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 45.9%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 32.3m -18.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 30.8m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Despite extending his streak of efficient shooting, hidden negative plays dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. His excellent defensive metrics and reliable weak-side scoring kept the baseline high. A few poorly timed defensive rotations likely cost Indiana during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 30.8m -17.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 27.9m
14
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.4

Playmaking volume couldn't overcome the damage done by live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses at the point of attack. He bled value in transition defense, frequently getting caught out of position after missed assignments. Despite solid raw assist numbers, the empty possessions he generated kept his overall impact firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 27.9m -15.6
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 24.8m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A massive drop in offensive aggression saw him fade into the background after a recent scoring tear. While he maintained solid hustle metrics by fighting through screens, his lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to load up elsewhere. The passive approach ultimately resulted in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 24.8m -13.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 21.9m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite rim protection and overall defensive presence completely masked a highly inefficient shooting night. He settled for far too many perimeter looks, which tanked his offensive efficiency. However, his ability to blow up pick-and-roll actions on the other end secured a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 21.9m -12.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 2
Kobe Brown 20.1m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Continued his streak of highly efficient shot selection, taking only what the defense gave him to maintain a positive offensive flow. He generated crucial extra possessions through active hands in the passing lanes. This low-mistake, opportunistic style perfectly anchored the second unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 20.1m -11.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 17.3m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Completely neutralized on the perimeter, he struggled to find any daylight against aggressive closeouts. His negative defensive impact compounded the offensive disappearing act, as he was repeatedly targeted on switches. The inability to generate any gravity off the ball severely cramped the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 17.3m -9.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

A rare off-night finishing in the paint derailed his usual offensive rhythm, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. He failed to generate his trademark defensive chaos, registering a flat zero in hustle metrics. Without those disruptive plays to ignite transition breaks, his overall impact slipped into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 17.1m -9.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Poor shot selection at the rim resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent run-outs. He provided some resistance at the point of attack, but it wasn't enough to offset the offensive dead weight. Forcing contested layups in traffic completely stalled the team's momentum during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 17.0m -9.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 15.6m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt drove a massive offensive surge, as his willingness to let it fly from deep pulled rim protectors away from the paint. While his interior defense was slightly subpar, the offensive gravity he provided more than made up for it. His perimeter shooting completely changed the geometry of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 15.6m -8.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Obi Toppin 10.6m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Operating strictly on the margins during a brief stint, his inability to connect from beyond the arc limited his offensive utility. He managed to scrape out a slightly positive impact through disciplined weak-side defensive rotations. The lack of transition opportunities completely neutralized his usual vertical threat.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -81.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 10.6m -5.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 4.8m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Bleeding value on the defensive end during a very brief cameo made him unplayable for longer stretches. He was entirely passive on offense, failing to even attempt a shot or create an advantage. Opponents immediately recognized the mismatch and successfully hunted him in isolation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0