GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jrue Holiday 25.9m
13
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.5

Surgical precision from beyond the arc punished defenders for dropping under screens. His disciplined point-of-attack navigation and timely closeouts ensured a steady, positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +50.6
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 25.9m -14.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 25.2m
14
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.1

Absolute dominance as a primary rim protector completely suffocated the opponent's interior attack. Converting second-chance opportunities with soft touch around the basket compounded his massive two-way influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +52.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +12.9
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 25.2m -14.1
Impact +20.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
S Deni Avdija 24.9m
18
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.9

Forcing the issue from the perimeter slightly dampened an otherwise productive playmaking performance. Whenever he abandoned the three-point shot to attack the seams of the defense, his impact metrics stabilized.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 24.9m -13.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 24.2m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Elite activity in the passing lanes and relentless offensive rebounding completely tilted the possession battle. He sacrificed his own scoring volume to function as a defensive disruptor, blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +8.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 24.2m -13.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 24.2m
18
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Ball-stopping isolation plays and poor shot selection out of double teams severely hampered the team's half-court efficiency. Even with a respectable scoring total, his lack of off-ball movement and low hustle metrics resulted in a distinctly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 24.2m -13.6
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.0

Downhill aggression and improved decision-making in transition carved up the retreating defense. By consistently collapsing the paint and making the right reads, he generated a massive offensive rating spike.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 24.4m -13.7
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.2

Wreaking absolute havoc in the passing lanes fueled a barrage of easy transition buckets. Pairing his signature defensive disruption with surprisingly lethal catch-and-shoot execution resulted in a spectacular two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +51.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +10.1
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 23.1m -12.9
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
Kris Murray 21.5m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Passive off-ball positioning and a failure to secure contested rebounds allowed opponents to extend possessions. Despite pristine shooting splits, his inability to physically impose himself on the defensive end dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +51.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 21.5m -12.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 15.5m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Hesitancy to initiate the offense allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. Being a non-threat in the half-court bogged down the unit's spacing and resulted in a negative overall stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 15.5m -8.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Vertical spacing and disciplined drop coverage provided a reliable safety valve during his rotation minutes. He altered several shots at the rim without fouling, anchoring the second unit's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 13.5m -7.6
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Tenacious on-ball pressure disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm and generated crucial stops. He leveraged his quickness to stay in front of drives, providing a much-needed defensive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 9.3m -5.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Caleb Love 8.4m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Rushing contested looks early in the shot clock short-circuited the offense and led directly to negative momentum. His inability to stay attached to his man off the ball further compounded a highly ineffective appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 8.4m -4.6
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 33.6m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.3

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc heavily penalized his overall rating. Despite showing solid rotational awareness on the defensive end, bricking open catch-and-shoot looks continuously stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 33.6m -18.9
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ousmane Dieng 32.8m
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.6

Inefficient shot selection completely undermined his overall impact, as clanking a high volume of attempts routinely sparked opponent transition attacks. While his activity level remained high on the glass, forcing offense against set defenses proved costly.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -43.2
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 32.8m -18.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Pete Nance 31.3m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers ruined his offensive rhythm and dragged his net score into the negatives. He failed to capitalize on pick-and-pop opportunities, allowing the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 31.3m -17.5
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 31.0m
36
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.2

Relentless perimeter aggression broke the opposing defensive scheme and drove a massive positive impact. His willingness to confidently pull up in transition completely altered the floor spacing and masked any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 41.3%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 31.0m -17.4
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jericho Sims 28.9m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Flawless execution around the rim maximized his offensive footprint without requiring high usage. By strictly taking high-percentage looks in the dunker spot, he provided a highly efficient anchor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 28.9m -16.2
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Forcing contested mid-range looks negated the value of his solid weak-side defensive rotations. The overall impact hovered near neutral because his timely closeouts were offset by wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 29.2m -16.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Smothering point-of-attack defense and relentless loose-ball recoveries defined this highly effective stint. He didn't need offensive volume to shape the game, constantly blowing up dribble hand-offs to generate stops.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 21.5m -11.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

Throwing up a barrage of empty perimeter attempts completely derailed the offensive flow and tanked his net rating. The inability to hit even a single shot allowed defenders to aggressively cheat off him and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -59.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 19.0m -10.6
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Erratically rushing through his limited offensive touches prevented him from finding any rhythm. While his energy on closeouts was apparent, the lack of control resulted in empty possessions that dragged down his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -63.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 8.3m -4.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to acclimate to the game's pace during a brief rotation window. A couple of rushed attempts against set defenders kept him from making a positive mark on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 4.5m -2.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0