Portland Trail Blazers

Western Conference

Portland
Blazers

HC Tiago Splitter

42-40
W2

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Donovan Clingan
Center Yr 1 78G (78S)
+12.3
12.0 pts
11.6 reb
2.1 ast
27.2 min

Donovan Clingan’s midseason stretch was defined by sheer physical intimidation, transforming the big man into a terrifying interior anchor. He dictated the terms of engagement through pure force. During the 01/26 vs BOS matchup, he scored a mere 9 points but still posted a highly positive +6.4 impact score. His value stemmed entirely from elite rim deterrence, logging a staggering +19.8 defensive impact by completely altering the opponent's shot profile. He reached his absolute peak on 02/12 vs UTA. Exploding for 23 points, 18 rebounds, and 7 assists, he generated a monstrous +21.1 impact score by utterly dominating the paint on both ends. Yet, his occasional attempts to force offense came with severe hidden costs, as seen on 03/06 vs HOU. Despite pouring in 18 points and grabbing 13 boards, Clingan registered a -3.3 impact because his sudden offensive aggression compromised his usual rim protection, plummeting his defensive impact to a meager +1.2.

Deni Avdija
Forward Yr 5 67G (67S)
+11.0
24.5 pts
6.9 reb
6.8 ast
33.4 min

This stretch was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between high-usage playmaking and catastrophic shooting inefficiency. Avdija frequently stuffed the stat sheet, but his erratic shot selection actively sabotaged his overall value. Look no further than 03/15 vs PHI. He tallied 25 points and 9 assists, yet generated a dismal -6.4 impact score because he relentlessly forced the issue from beyond the arc. The same hidden costs ruined his outing during 02/20 vs DEN, where 13 assists were entirely negated by a -12.0 impact score driven by his complete inability to space the floor. When he stopped settling, the results flipped entirely. During 02/09 vs PHI, Avdija posted a dominant +15.0 impact score by leaning on elite playmaking from the forward position and aggressive downhill attacks rather than perimeter chucking. Until he exorcises these bad shooting habits, his actual on-court value will remain wildly unpredictable.

Shaedon Sharpe
Guard Yr 3 51G (42S)
+6.9
20.7 pts
4.3 reb
2.6 ast
29.3 min

A frustrating duality defined Shaedon Sharpe’s midseason stretch, as his explosive scoring potential constantly warred with disastrous shot selection. His worst habits surfaced on 01/03 vs SAS, where a brutal 3-for-16 shooting night and an overreliance on contested mid-range pull-ups torpedoed the offense for a dismal -17.6 impact score. Hidden costs often ruined his high-scoring nights. During the 01/18 vs SAC matchup, he poured in 27 points but posted a -5.8 impact score because his high-volume chucking and missed field goals completely stalled the offensive flow. Yet, when he abandoned the forced isolation jumpers and attacked the rim, he looked like an absolute star. He dropped 25 points on 01/17 vs LAL and generated a massive +15.0 impact score by aggressively slicing through the defense to create high-quality looks. He clearly has the physical talent to dominate. Now he just needs the fundamental discipline to match it.

Jrue Holiday
Guard Yr 16 54G (52S)
+5.1
16.4 pts
4.6 reb
6.0 ast
29.6 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, as Jrue Holiday oscillated violently between masterful orchestration and erratic, high-volume gunning. His worst habits surfaced on 02/11 vs MIN, where he poured in 23 points but posted a dismal -13.9 impact score. That dreadful mark stemmed entirely from terrible shot selection, as he hoisted 22 field goal attempts and masked his underlying inefficiency with empty counting stats. He bled value again on 02/24 vs MIN, managing 22 points but sinking to a -8.6 impact due to costly live-ball turnovers and sloppy transition defensive breakdowns. Yet, when he finally reined in the wild attempts, his ceiling remained astronomical. He put together an absolute masterclass on 03/04 vs MEM, racking up 35 points and 11 assists to drive a massive +15.2 impact. Scorching 8-for-11 shooting from beyond the arc broke the defense entirely, reminding everyone just how lethal his game can be when his decision-making matches his raw talent.

Jerami Grant
Forward Yr 11 58G (38S)
+4.8
18.6 pts
3.4 reb
2.1 ast
29.6 min

This volatile mid-season stretch was defined by a jarring mid-January demotion to the bench and a maddening addiction to sticky isolation basketball. Even when the raw point totals looked respectable, hidden costs frequently dragged down his actual value on the floor. Look no further than 02/03 vs PHX, where his 23 points disguised a highly damaging -6.8 impact driven entirely by blatant defensive apathy. The lowest point of his temporary reserve role arrived on 01/23 vs TOR. He managed just 8 points while settling for contested perimeter fadeaways that completely derailed the offensive rhythm, cratering his rating to a brutal -13.3 impact score. Yet, when he finally trimmed the fat from his shot diet, the results were staggering. He closed this window on 02/22 vs PHX by scoring 23 points and posting a massive +15.5 impact score. Exceptional shot selection and ruthless perimeter efficiency fueled that dominant rating, offering a brief glimpse of the elite wing he can be when he stops forcing the issue.

Robert Williams III
Center-Forward Yr 7 60G (1S)
+3.2
6.7 pts
7.0 reb
1.0 ast
17.1 min

This late-season stretch was defined by sheer terror at the rim, as Robert Williams III morphed into a destructive backup big man who rarely needed the basketball to dominate. He completely overwhelmed the opposition on Mar 04 vs MEM, dropping 20 points and 11 rebounds to generate a monstrous +26.6 impact score. That astronomical rating stemmed directly from unrelenting vertical spacing and elite pick-and-roll finishing that warped the opposing defense. Even when his scoring vanished, his defensive footprint remained massive. During a quiet six-point outing on Mar 15 vs PHI, Williams still posted a +16.2 impact score because his tremendous weak-side shot deterrence (+11.7 defense) terrified drivers. However, his offensive limitations occasionally caught up to him. On Mar 20 vs MIN, a surprisingly ineffective finishing night around the basket (1-for-4 shooting) dragged him to a -2.5 impact score, as his rim deterrence could not overcome his offensive struggles. As long as he stays within his role as a lob threat and glass-cleaner, Williams remains an absolute luxury for a second unit.

Toumani Camara
Forward Yr 2 83G (83S)
+2.9
13.3 pts
5.1 reb
2.4 ast
33.3 min

A brutal shooting slump eventually gave way to a blistering hot streak, defining a wildly volatile stretch of basketball for Toumani Camara. His jumper completely abandoned him during the Mar 04 vs MEM matchup, where a disastrous 0-for-7 blanking from beyond the arc tanked his impact score to a dismal -5.2. Chucking up bricks from the perimeter routinely derailed his overall value during those early weeks, masking the fact that his defensive motor rarely idled. The offensive floodgates finally opened on Mar 23 vs BKN. Camara erupted for 35 points on a staggering 9-of-11 from deep, generating a massive +33.2 impact score by utterly shattering Brooklyn's defensive scheme. Yet, he remained highly effective even when the scoring cooled off again. During the Mar 25 vs MIL game, he managed just 10 points but still posted a +7.2 impact score. He salvaged his overall value that night by generating elite activity in the passing lanes and crashing the offensive glass for a +8.9 hustle mark, perfectly illustrating his gritty two-way floor.

Scoot Henderson
Guard Yr 2 31G (11S)
-0.4
14.1 pts
2.7 reb
3.7 ast
24.7 min

A maddening cocktail of reckless shot selection and defensive inconsistency defined Scoot Henderson’s turbulent early-season stretch. Even when the ball found the bottom of the net, hidden costs dragged him down, like during the 02/24 vs MIN matchup where his 19 points were entirely offset by errant jumpers and a distinct lack of defensive resistance, resulting in a -5.4 impact score. He routinely cratered his own offensive value by forcing drives into heavy traffic, hitting a brutal low of a -14.4 impact score on 03/04 vs MEM while shooting a frigid 3-of-11 from the floor. Yet, just when you want to write him off, Henderson flips the script and plays like an absolute wrecking ball. His performance on 03/08 vs IND was a genuine offensive masterclass. By attacking downhill relentlessly and finishing at the rim instead of settling for bad threes, he racked up 28 points and a towering +19.8 impact score. If he can simply stop bailing out defenses with low-percentage perimeter heaves, that explosive rim pressure could finally translate into consistent winning basketball.

Matisse Thybulle
Guard-Forward Yr 6 31G
-1.7
5.7 pts
1.9 reb
0.9 ast
15.9 min

Matisse Thybulle’s early season was defined by extreme stylistic whiplash, alternating between game-wrecking defensive chaos and total offensive invisibility. When his jumper occasionally fell, he was a terrifying two-way weapon. He logged a staggering +13.3 impact score on 10/24 vs GSW by hitting all three of his shots and blowing up passing lanes for a +14.0 defensive mark. Even when barely looking at the rim, his relentless hustle generated massive value, like during 03/06 vs HOU where he scored just five points but posted a +10.0 impact by turning pure defensive disruption into easy transition opportunities. Yet, that same hyper-specialization often became a fatal flaw when his shot completely abandoned him. On 03/04 vs MEM, his offensive zero-act resulted in a brutal -7.8 impact score. Because he went scoreless on 0-of-3 shooting, defenders aggressively cheated off him to clog the driving lanes for his teammates. He remains a brilliant schematic disruptor off the bench, but his on-court survival entirely depends on opponents respecting him just enough on the perimeter.

Caleb Love
Guard Yr 0 49G (1S)
-2.3
10.4 pts
2.3 reb
2.5 ast
20.7 min

Caleb Love’s second quarter of the season was defined by maddening volatility, oscillating wildly between game-breaking perimeter explosions and deeply damaging shot-chasing. When his jumper falls, he looks like a legitimate weapon. He caught fire from deep on 12/29 vs DAL, pouring in 24 points to generate a massive +10.1 impact score by completely transforming the offense and punishing defenders. Yet, his insatiable appetite for contested looks frequently sabotages his own production. Look no further than 01/22 vs MIA, where he tallied 20 points but posted a -3.6 impact because reckless shot selection and forced early-clock attempts entirely wiped out his scoring value. The hidden costs of his game also extend to the other end of the floor. On 01/23 vs TOR, catastrophic transition defense resulted in a brutal -10.0 impact despite a decent offensive rhythm. He remains a tantalizing talent, but his stubborn ball-stopping habits keep his overall value wildly unpredictable.

Kris Murray
Forward Yr 2 58G (15S)
-2.9
5.7 pts
3.6 reb
1.4 ast
23.2 min

A maddening stretch of offensive invisibility defined Kris Murray's midseason run, as he frequently floated through his minutes without leaving a footprint. During the 12/05 vs DET matchup, his absolute refusal to attack generated a dismal -8.9 impact score, with zero points and total passivity completely killing his floor value. Yet, he occasionally salvaged his standing through sheer grit when his jumper abandoned him. Look at the 01/02 vs NOP contest, where he managed just 6 points on a brutal 1-of-7 shooting from the field. Despite the cratered offensive output, he still posted a +5.6 impact score because he leaned heavily on a relentless defensive motor and hustle to generate non-scoring value. When he actually decided to hunt his own shot, the results were striking. He erupted for 16 points on 7-of-10 shooting during the 02/24 vs MIN game, capitalizing on open looks to earn a +5.5 impact mark. Unfortunately, those assertive flashes were rare anomalies buried in a sea of empty cardio sessions.

Vít Krejčí
Guard Yr 4 19G
-3.9
7.2 pts
2.7 reb
1.7 ast
19.2 min

Wild inconsistency and a maddening inability to sync his offensive execution with his defensive effort defined this volatile stretch for Vít Krejčí. He could occasionally salvage a brutal shooting night through sheer grit, like during 02/03 vs PHX. Despite scoring just 5 points on a woeful 2/7 from the field, he generated a +5.8 impact score by leaning heavily into his off-ball defensive responsibilities. Yet, the inverse was also painfully true. During 03/01 vs ATL, he dropped 14 points on a near-perfect 4/5 shooting clip, but his impact plummeted to a catastrophic -10.2. Hidden turnover costs and lazy transition defensive lapses completely erased his scoring efficiency that night. The slump reached its nadir during 03/08 vs IND, where a disastrous 1/8 display from beyond the arc short-circuited the half-court spacing and tanked his impact to -10.4. When he hits spot-up looks and rotates on time, he looks like a playable bench wing, but these twenty games revealed a player severely lacking reliability.

Jayson Kent
Forward Yr 0 5G
-6.5
2.0 pts
1.0 reb
0.0 ast
4.5 min
Blake Wesley
Guard Yr 3 31G
-6.7
4.8 pts
1.3 reb
2.0 ast
11.6 min

Blake Wesley’s early-season stretch was defined by frantic energy that frequently sabotaged his own team. When he managed to find the basket, as he did scoring 10 points on 02/03 vs PHX, severe defensive lapses dragged his impact down to an abysmal -9.1. A similar story unfolded on 03/01 vs ATL, where an aggressive 12-point scoring surge was entirely erased by defensive breakdowns and ball-security issues, yielding a -5.9 impact score. His reckless pacing routinely caused wild drives and blown half-court spacing. Occasionally, he harnessed that erratic motor for good. On 10/31 vs DEN, Wesley tallied just 5 points but posted a +3.2 impact by hounding ball-handlers the full length of the court and altering the tempo entirely. He remains a chaotic blur of a guard who desperately needs to learn when to tap the brakes.

Duop Reath
Center Yr 2 32G
-7.1
2.9 pts
1.2 reb
0.3 ast
8.1 min

Duop Reath’s first twenty games were defined by the wildly erratic, feast-or-famine reality of being a one-dimensional floor-spacing big. When his outside shot falls, he completely warps opposing coverages. He did exactly that on 11/05 vs OKC, burying four threes for 12 points and generating a massive +5.0 impact score through lethal pick-and-pop execution. However, his lack of physical interior presence constantly threatens to erase his offensive value. Look at his 11/18 vs PHX appearance, where a catastrophic inability to secure the defensive glass resulted in a dismal -5.8 impact score despite logging 10 minutes. Strangely enough, he occasionally found ways to survive without hitting shots at all. On 11/30 vs OKC, Reath managed a +0.9 impact score despite putting up zero points, entirely because his solid defensive positioning kept the team afloat during a brief cameo. Ultimately, he remains a situational luxury who is highly effective when spacing the floor but too fragile on the boards to trust consistently.

Sidy Cissoko
Guard Yr 2 75G (26S)
-8.2
5.1 pts
2.2 reb
1.5 ast
19.1 min

Extreme volatility defined Sidy Cissoko’s midseason stretch, as the wing oscillated violently between flawless efficiency and complete offensive invisibility. On 01/30 vs NYK, he was spectacular. He paired a perfect 5-for-5 shooting night with suffocating defense to generate a stellar +7.8 impact score off the bench. Yet when handed a starting gig on 02/07 vs MEM, a sudden spike in usage exposed his limitations. Despite grabbing 10 rebounds, his inefficient perimeter chucking completely derailed the offensive flow and dragged his impact down to a -2.8. The bottom completely fell out shortly after on 02/09 vs PHI, where he posted a disastrous -10.1 impact score. He went scoreless on 0-for-4 shooting in that contest, actively hurting the team with poor defensive awareness and creating brutal 4-on-5 spacing issues that doomed his minutes.

Rayan Rupert
Guard-Forward Yr 2 48G
-9.1
2.9 pts
1.8 reb
0.7 ast
12.0 min

This stretch of the season was defined by a maddening inconsistency, where Rayan Rupert bounced between providing useful energy and looking completely unplayable. When he stayed within a narrow role, he found genuine success. Take his outing on 02/23 vs SAC, where exceptional positional rebounding and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a +5.2 impact score despite modest scoring. However, increased minutes and spot starts later in the rotation frequently exposed his glaring flaws. Look at his performance on 04/01 vs DAL, where a seemingly solid 13-point, 7-rebound effort actually yielded a -3.9 impact score. Hidden mistakes like poorly timed fouls and defensive breakdowns completely negated his offensive volume that night. The absolute nadir arrived on 03/23 vs ATL. Logging 30 minutes as a starter without scoring a single point, his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to ignore him entirely, torpedoing the lineup and resulting in a catastrophic -24.0 impact score.

Javonte Cooke
Guard Yr 0 19G
-9.3
1.2 pts
1.0 reb
0.4 ast
4.9 min
Hansen Yang
Center Yr 0 43G (1S)
-9.9
2.2 pts
1.5 reb
0.5 ast
7.0 min

This stretch of the season was defined by a desperate, often painful struggle to adapt to the sheer velocity of the NBA game. When handed an extended look on 01/07 vs HOU, Yang looked entirely overwhelmed. He logged a brutal -13.7 impact score that night because disjointed offensive possessions and an inability to process the game's pace completely derailed his minutes. He was a glaring negative. Instead of letting the offense come to him, he routinely forced terrible outside shots or rushed off-balance attempts in the paint. Yet, when he finally stopped overthinking and relied on simple fundamentals, he found ways to tilt the floor. Despite scoring just two points on 02/11 vs MIN, he posted a stellar +6.1 impact by providing immediate defensive activity and executing his role flawlessly. He mirrored that disciplined approach on 03/23 vs BKN, generating a +4.2 impact through smart positional awareness and verticality around the basket rather than hunting empty stats.

GAME LOG

W
SAC SAC 110
122 POR POR
Apr 12 Analysis available
+12
W
LAC LAC 97
116 POR POR
Apr 10 Analysis available
+19
L
POR POR 101
112 SAS SAS
Apr 8 Analysis available
-11
L
POR POR 132
137 DEN DEN
Apr 6 Analysis available
-5
W
NOP NOP 106
118 POR POR
Apr 2 Analysis available
+12
W
POR POR 114
104 LAC LAC
Mar 31 Analysis available
+10
W
WAS WAS 88
123 POR POR
Mar 29 Analysis available
+35
L
DAL DAL 100
93 POR POR
Mar 28 Analysis available
-7
W
MIL MIL 99
130 POR POR
Mar 25 Analysis available
+31
W
BKN BKN 99
134 POR POR
Mar 23 Analysis available
+35
L
POR POR 112
128 DEN DEN
Mar 22 Analysis available
-16
W
POR POR 108
104 MIN MIN
Mar 20 Analysis available
+4
W
POR POR 127
119 IND IND
Mar 18 Analysis available
+8
W
POR POR 114
95 BKN BKN
Mar 16 Analysis available
+19
L
POR POR 103
109 PHI PHI
Mar 15 Analysis available
-6
W
UTA UTA 114
124 POR POR
Mar 13 Analysis available
+10
L
CHA CHA 103
101 POR POR
Mar 10 Analysis available
-2
W
IND IND 111
131 POR POR
Mar 8 Analysis available
+20
L
POR POR 99
106 HOU HOU
Mar 6 Analysis available
-7
W
POR POR 122
114 MEM MEM
Mar 4 Analysis available
+8
L
POR POR 101
135 ATL ATL
Mar 1 Analysis available
-34
L
POR POR 93
109 CHA CHA
Feb 28 Analysis available
-16
W
POR POR 121
112 CHI CHI
Feb 26 Analysis available
+9
L
MIN MIN 124
121 POR POR
Feb 24 Analysis available
-3
W
POR POR 92
77 PHX PHX
Feb 22 Analysis available
+15
L
DEN DEN 157
103 POR POR
Feb 20 Analysis available
-54
W
POR POR 135
119 UTA UTA
Feb 12 Analysis available
+16
L
POR POR 109
133 MIN MIN
Feb 11 Analysis available
-24
W
PHI PHI 118
135 POR POR
Feb 9 Analysis available
+17
W
MEM MEM 115
122 POR POR
Feb 7 Analysis available
+7
W
MEM MEM 115
135 POR POR
Feb 6 Analysis available
+20
L
PHX PHX 130
125 POR POR
Feb 3 Analysis available
-5
L
CLE CLE 130
111 POR POR
Feb 1 Analysis available
-19
L
POR POR 97
127 NYK NYK
Jan 30 Analysis available
-30
L
POR POR 111
115 WAS WAS
Jan 28 Analysis available
-4
L
POR POR 94
102 BOS BOS
Jan 27 Analysis available
-8
L
TOR TOR 110
98 POR POR
Jan 24 Analysis available
-12
W
MIA MIA 110
127 POR POR
Jan 23 Analysis available
+17
W
POR POR 117
110 SAC SAC
Jan 19 Analysis available
+7
W
LAL LAL 116
132 POR POR
Jan 18 Analysis available
+16
W
ATL ATL 101
117 POR POR
Jan 16 Analysis available
+16
L
POR POR 97
119 GSW GSW
Jan 14 Analysis available
-22
L
NYK NYK 123
114 POR POR
Jan 11 Analysis available
-9
W
HOU HOU 105
111 POR POR
Jan 10 Analysis available
+6
W
HOU HOU 102
103 POR POR
Jan 8 Analysis available
+1
W
UTA UTA 117
137 POR POR
Jan 6 Analysis available
+20
W
POR POR 115
110 SAS SAS
Jan 4 Analysis available
+5
W
POR POR 122
109 NOP NOP
Jan 3 Analysis available
+13
L
POR POR 95
124 OKC OKC
Jan 1 Analysis available
-29
W
DAL DAL 122
125 POR POR
Dec 30 Analysis available
+3
W
BOS BOS 108
114 POR POR
Dec 28 Analysis available
+6
L
LAC LAC 119
103 POR POR
Dec 27 Analysis available
-16
L
ORL ORL 110
106 POR POR
Dec 24 Analysis available
-4
L
DET DET 110
102 POR POR
Dec 23 Analysis available
-8
W
POR POR 98
93 SAC SAC
Dec 21 Analysis available
+5
W
SAC SAC 133
134 POR POR
Dec 19 Analysis available
+1
W
GSW GSW 131
136 POR POR
Dec 15 Analysis available
+5
L
POR POR 120
143 NOP NOP
Dec 12 Analysis available
-23
L
POR POR 96
119 MEM MEM
Dec 7 Analysis available
-23
L
POR POR 116
122 DET DET
Dec 6 Analysis available
-6
W
POR POR 122
110 CLE CLE
Dec 4 Analysis available
+12
L
POR POR 118
121 TOR TOR
Dec 3 Analysis available
-3
L
OKC OKC 123
115 POR POR
Nov 30 Analysis available
-8
L
SAS SAS 115
102 POR POR
Nov 27 Analysis available
-13
W
POR POR 115
103 MIL MIL
Nov 25 Analysis available
+12
L
POR POR 95
122 OKC OKC
Nov 24 Analysis available
-27
W
POR POR 127
123 GSW GSW
Nov 22 Analysis available
+4
L
CHI CHI 122
121 POR POR
Nov 20 Analysis available
-1
L
PHX PHX 127
110 POR POR
Nov 19 Analysis available
-17
L
POR POR 133
138 DAL DAL
Nov 17 Analysis available
-5
L
POR POR 116
140 HOU HOU
Nov 15 Analysis available
-24
W
POR POR 125
117 NOP NOP
Nov 13 Analysis available
+8
L
POR POR 112
115 ORL ORL
Nov 11 Analysis available
-3
L
POR POR 131
136 MIA MIA
Nov 9 Analysis available
-5
W
OKC OKC 119
121 POR POR
Nov 6 Analysis available
+2
L
LAL LAL 123
115 POR POR
Nov 4 Analysis available
-8
W
DEN DEN 107
109 POR POR
Nov 1 Analysis available
+2
W
POR POR 136
134 UTA UTA
Oct 30 Analysis available
+2
W
POR POR 122
108 LAL LAL
Oct 27 Analysis available
+14
L
POR POR 107
114 LAC LAC
Oct 26 Analysis available
-7
W
GSW GSW 119
139 POR POR
Oct 24 Analysis available
+20
L
MIN MIN 118
114 POR POR
Oct 22 Analysis available
-4