GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S T. Camara 34.7m
10
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.3

Elite hustle metrics (+8.4) and suffocating perimeter defense completely defined this highly impactful performance. Even with his scoring output dipping significantly, his willingness to do the dirty work generated crucial extra possessions. He was a quintessential glue guy, swinging momentum through sheer effort rather than shot-making.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +9.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S J. Holiday 33.1m
14
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.5

An uncharacteristically frigid shooting night from deep torpedoed his overall value despite elite defensive metrics (+6.8). Missed open looks and stalled offensive initiations outweighed his usual point-of-attack brilliance. His inability to punish dropping defenders allowed the opposition to clog the driving lanes all night.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S D. Avdija 33.0m
20
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

A brutal shooting night from the perimeter severely dragged down his overall impact score (-4.7). The sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his respectable defensive contributions and raw scoring total. Forcing contested looks late in the shot clock ultimately did more harm than good to the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S D. Clingan 30.0m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Exceptional rim protection and defensive positioning (+8.3) anchored a highly effective shift. He added a surprising wrinkle by stepping out and knocking down perimeter shots, pulling opposing bigs away from the paint. This two-way versatility maximized his value and stabilized the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S S. Sharpe 28.9m
15
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.9

Catastrophic shot selection and a barrage of bricked jumpers cratered his net impact to a team-worst -13.1. He consistently hijacked the offense with contested, low-percentage looks that fueled the opponent's transition game. The high-volume inefficiency completely erased any marginal defensive value he provided.

Shooting
FG 5/20 (25.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
J. Grant 27.8m
29
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.5

Blistering scoring efficiency and lethal perimeter execution drove a massive +12.5 net impact. He systematically dismantled individual matchups, capitalizing on defensive rotations to bury high-value shots. This offensive masterclass completely dictated the pace and provided an unstoppable primary scoring option.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 87.1%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +24.9
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
K. Murray 18.6m
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Efficient spot-up shooting wasn't enough to rescue a negative net impact (-3.3) caused by poor positional defense. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently allowing open driving lanes that compromised the team's defensive shell. The offensive flashes were completely negated by his inability to string together stops.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
B. Wesley 14.9m
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Strong defensive engagement (+4.8) kept his overall impact slightly in the green despite a quiet offensive outing. He utilized his quickness to stay in front of ball-handlers, disrupting the flow of the opposing second unit. A steady, low-mistake performance that provided exactly what was needed from a reserve guard.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
M. Thybulle 13.8m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Offensive invisibility was completely offset by his trademark defensive disruption (+4.5). He generated immense value through deflections and weak-side help, blowing up multiple actions before they could materialize. A classic performance where his defensive instincts heavily outweighed a scoreless shooting line.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
H. Yang 5.3m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Barely made a blip on the radar during a very brief rotational stint. He failed to establish any interior presence and was a slight negative defensively (-0.5). The sample size was simply too small to generate any meaningful momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S A. Edwards 39.2m
41
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+27.7

An absolute offensive eruption shattered his recent slump, fueled by relentless downhill attacks and confident perimeter execution. The sheer volume of successful isolation plays drove a massive box score impact (+24.0), forcing the defense to collapse on him constantly. While his defensive metrics were pedestrian, his unstoppable scoring gravity dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Scoring +30.8
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +8.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S J. Randle 37.3m
19
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.7

Sustained offensive efficiency anchored a highly productive performance, extending his streak of highly accurate shooting nights. He leveraged his physicality inside to create quality looks while remaining a steady defensive presence (+5.8). This balanced approach maximized his floor time without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +7.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S R. Gobert 31.9m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Despite a stellar box score projection, his overall influence was muted (+0.5) by a lack of offensive volume and lower-than-usual hustle metrics. He anchored the paint effectively enough to deter drives, but didn't dominate the glass or generate extra possessions. A quiet but efficient night where his gravity mattered more than his touches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense -5.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S J. McDaniels 29.0m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

High-end defensive metrics (+6.9) and elite perimeter efficiency drove a strong positive impact. He sustained his recent offensive rhythm by picking his spots perfectly from beyond the arc. His length on the wing consistently disrupted opponent sets, cementing a stellar two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S D. DiVincenzo 20.4m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

Elite defensive metrics (+8.2) were completely overshadowed by a steep drop-off in offensive production and overall negative play-driving. He struggled to find any rhythm on the perimeter, stalling out half-court sets when he was on the floor. His point-of-attack pressure was commendable, but the lack of scoring punch severely hurt his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 6
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

A surprising surge in scoring efficiency wasn't enough to drag his overall impact out of the red. While he capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, defensive lapses and a failure to generate secondary actions limited his value. The raw production looked great, but empty calories during transition sequences kept his net rating slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
N. Reid 19.9m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A sharp reduction in offensive usage limited his ability to positively influence the game. He provided adequate rim deterrence (+4.2 defense), but the lack of his usual floor-spacing dynamic made the second-unit offense stagnant. Ultimately, he floated through his minutes without leaving a distinct imprint on either end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
J. Clark 16.5m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.9

Offensive ineptitude was entirely masked by absolute havoc-wreaking on the defensive end (+6.4). He generated immense value through relentless ball pressure and diving for loose balls, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive rhythm. This was a textbook example of a player impacting winning without needing to hit a single jump shot.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
M. Conley 12.7m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Continued shooting struggles completely negated his typical stabilizing presence as a floor general. Missed floaters and an inability to break down the primary point-of-attack defender led to stalled possessions. His brief stint was largely ineffective, forcing the coaching staff to look elsewhere for offensive initiation.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
B. Hyland 7.7m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

A brief, highly ineffective stint was characterized by defensive liabilities (-0.9) and an inability to spark the offense. He failed to create separation against backup guards, leading to empty trips down the floor. The negative impact accumulated rapidly, resulting in a quick hook to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +38.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1