GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jerami Grant 34.4m
35
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

A massive scoring explosion was negated by virtually non-existent defensive and hustle contributions. The high-volume shot creation looked great on paper, but his inability to impact the game outside of scoring left his overall rating slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 34.4m -22.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Shaedon Sharpe 32.7m
35
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.1

Dominated the game through lethal shot selection and hyper-efficient perimeter scoring. Combined his offensive masterpiece with highly disruptive defensive play, resulting in a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.8%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +29.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +41.0
Avg player in 32.7m -20.9
Impact +20.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 32.5m
26
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.4

Inefficient volume shooting heavily weighed down his otherwise robust box score production. While he generated decent defensive value, the sheer number of missed attempts from the field kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 32.5m -20.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 25.4m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Elite hustle metrics were completely overshadowed by a significant drop in offensive production and poor perimeter efficiency. Forcing outside shots rather than playing to his strengths dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +6.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 25.4m -16.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 21.9m
3
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Anchored the interior with outstanding defensive metrics but offered virtually nothing as a scoring threat. His passivity on offense prevented him from turning a dominant rim-protecting performance into a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +8.2
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 21.9m -14.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 28.3m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics defined his performance, proving that sheer energy can swing a game. A surprising uptick in scoring efficiency compared to his recent struggles provided just enough offensive value to keep him in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +10.7
Defense +2.7
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 28.3m -18.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kris Murray 27.2m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.0

Bled value at an alarming rate due to a severe lack of defensive resistance and low-energy play. A passive offensive approach combined with minimal hustle metrics made him a glaring weak link during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 27.2m -17.3
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Flawless execution around the basket extended his streak of highly efficient shooting nights. Paired with strong defensive positioning, his mistake-free interior play provided a steady, stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +5.9
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 19.1m -12.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 12.0m
8
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a sudden and unexpected scoring burst off the bench that slightly outpaced his defensive limitations. Efficient shot-making in a short burst allowed him to sneak out with a marginally positive rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 12.0m -7.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A complete non-factor on both ends of the floor, offering zero hustle or defensive resistance. His inability to generate any offense compounded the damage, resulting in a steeply negative impact during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 6.3m -3.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 35.4m
48
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+30.5

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency driven by historically great perimeter shot-making. He broke the opposing defensive scheme entirely, pairing his scoring gravity with surprisingly elite defensive and hustle metrics to post a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 16/26 (61.5%)
3PT 12/19 (63.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.5%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +34.9
Hustle +7.3
Defense +11.0
Raw total +53.2
Avg player in 35.4m -22.7
Impact +30.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.3

Stifling defensive metrics and high-energy hustle plays couldn't salvage a remarkably rough shooting night. Generating offense primarily through forced attempts rather than organic flow ultimately cratered his net impact despite his typical grit.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 35.0m -22.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Draymond Green 29.9m
14
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.8

Elite defensive metrics and strong hustle plays were completely undone by hidden negatives elsewhere on the floor. Even with a surprising scoring surge above his recent average, the underlying math suggests poor offensive execution or turnovers dragged down his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +11.0
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 29.9m -19.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 8
S Moses Moody 23.4m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Despite a significant regression in scoring volume compared to recent outings, his overall impact stayed slightly positive due to steady defensive contributions. A sharp drop-off in offensive aggression limited his ceiling, but timely perimeter shooting kept him above water.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 23.4m -15.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Quinten Post 19.4m
11
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.2

Capitalized on his limited minutes by providing a highly efficient scoring punch from the perimeter. His positive impact was driven by excellent shot selection and a surprising offensive spike that caught the defense completely off guard.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 19.4m -12.4
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

A sharp decline in scoring volume from his recent hot streak limited his overall effectiveness. Despite solid defensive metrics and efficient shooting when he did attack, his passive approach kept his net impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 32.6m -20.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

A complete offensive disappearing act tanked his value, as he failed to convert a single attempt from the field. While he tried to compensate with active hands and solid defensive positioning, the total lack of scoring gravity made him a severe liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 18.9m -12.2
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Buddy Hield 16.4m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A massive scoring spike compared to his recent slump wasn't enough to push him into the green. Marginal defensive impact and low hustle metrics suggest he gave up nearly as much on the other end as he provided with his perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 16.4m -10.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

Maximized his brief rotational stint by playing completely within himself and finishing his limited looks around the rim. A modest but positive rating stems from avoiding mistakes and providing steady interior defense.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 16.0m -10.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Bleeding value during a brief stint, his lack of defensive resistance and zero hustle contributions stood out. A stark regression from his recent offensive production left him without a way to positively influence the game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 6.8m -4.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 6.3m
1
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan after a string of highly efficient scoring nights. Without his usual scoring punch, his lack of tangible hustle plays rendered his short stint highly ineffective.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +1.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 6.3m -4.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0