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 32.7m
19
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.9

An absolute menace in the margins, generating massive value through relentless hustle and lockdown defense. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll sets with his length and generated extra possessions by crashing the offensive glass. This was a masterclass in high-motor, two-way wing play.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +8.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S D. Avdija 29.5m
26
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+15.0

Offensively carried the load by bullying smaller defenders in the mid-post and finishing efficiently at the rim. However, his overall impact was dragged down by sluggish perimeter defense, where he struggled to navigate screens. The elite shot creation outweighed the defensive lapses, but just barely.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +21.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S J. Holiday 28.0m
12
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+2.4

A sharp decline in scoring efficiency combined with likely turnover issues negated his elite playmaking. He struggled to finish around the basket, and his missed layups often led to disadvantageous transition defense. Even a strong defensive showing couldn't rescue a night marred by offensive friction.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S S. Sharpe 25.0m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his negative impact, as he repeatedly settled for contested, early-clock jumpers. The poor efficiency derailed offensive momentum and fueled opponent transition opportunities. Despite decent defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted possessions tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S D. Clingan 21.6m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.1

Dominated the interior by converting high-percentage drop-offs and sealing his man deep in the paint. His massive scoring spike was fueled by excellent pick-and-roll chemistry, while his sheer size deterred drives at the rim. He anchored the unit flawlessly, dictating the physical terms of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +10.2
Defense -5.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
J. Grant 27.6m
22
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.4

Scored efficiently in isolation but bled value elsewhere through a lack of secondary playmaking and rebounding. He became a black hole on offense, stopping ball movement and allowing the defense to load up. The isolation-heavy approach yielded points but ultimately stagnated the broader offensive system.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
K. Murray 26.5m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Exploded past his usual production by finding soft spots in the zone and finishing with pristine efficiency. His off-ball cutting was perfectly timed, punishing defenders who fell asleep on the weak side. Combined with disciplined closeouts on defense, he delivered a highly optimized, mistake-free performance.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
B. Wesley 19.9m
4
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

Pushed the pace recklessly, resulting in wild drives and low-percentage attempts at the rim. His inability to orchestrate the half-court offense led to empty trips and stalled momentum. The erratic decision-making as a primary ball-handler severely damaged the second unit's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
M. Thybulle 15.2m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.4

Wreaked absolute havoc on the defensive end, blowing up passing lanes and turning deflections into easy transition points. He capitalized perfectly on his limited offensive touches, sinking every shot he took to punish sagging defenders. It was an archetypal 3-and-D masterclass that swung the momentum heavily.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 128.9%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +59.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
H. Yang 7.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Struggled to adapt to the speed of the game during a brief stint, looking lost on offensive rotations. His defensive positioning was a bright spot, as he used his frame to wall off the paint effectively. Ultimately, his inability to finish through contact kept his impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
R. Rupert 3.7m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.5

Barely registered a pulse during his brief time on the floor, contributing nothing to the offensive flow. He was largely ignored by the defense, which allowed them to aggressively double the primary ball-handlers. The complete lack of floor-spacing gravity made him a net negative in his limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
D. Reath 2.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Logged a few minutes of neutral filler, executing basic defensive rotations without making any glaring mistakes. He didn't force any action offensively, simply setting screens and getting out of the way. A perfectly fine, albeit invisible, shift at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S S. Curry 27.3m
35
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+27.1

Utterly dismantled the defensive scheme by punishing drop coverage with relentless perimeter efficiency. His constant off-ball movement warped the opponent's defensive shell, generating massive positive value every time he touched the floor. The sheer volume of high-quality shot creation made him the most impactful player on the court.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 7/14 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.7%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +27.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +8.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S J. Butler III 26.7m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

A surprisingly muted overall impact despite solid underlying metrics, largely dragged down by passive stretches on the perimeter. He settled for contested mid-range looks rather than forcing the issue at the rim. While his defensive rotations were crisp, the lack of offensive gravity in the half-court stalled the unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.4%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S J. Kuminga 24.1m
16
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.7

A massive offensive surge compared to his recent baseline drove a highly positive impact. His aggressive downhill attacks yielded high-percentage looks, while a stellar defensive rating showed he was locked in on both ends. The combination of efficient scoring and active hands in the passing lanes defined his standout night.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S D. Green 20.5m
12
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.5

Despite unusually hot perimeter shooting, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive lapses and likely turnover issues. He connected on spot-up threes when left open, but struggled to anchor the interior defense against Portland's size. The scoring bump couldn't mask the structural breakdowns when he was the primary help defender.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Q. Post 15.9m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Provided a stabilizing presence in limited minutes through steady positioning and timely hustle plays. His ability to space the floor as a trailer kept the offense flowing smoothly. He executed his role perfectly, avoiding costly mistakes while holding his ground in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
W. Richard 24.6m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Despite solid shooting efficiency and excellent hustle metrics, his overall impact fell into the red due to defensive miscommunications. He frequently lost his man on backdoor cuts, giving up easy buckets that negated his offensive contributions. The raw scoring bump was overshadowed by structural breakdowns on the wing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Suffered a severe regression from his recent scoring tear, bricking his way to a negative overall impact. He struggled to finish through contact in the paint, wasting valuable possessions on low-percentage floaters. Although he fought hard on the glass and defensively, the offensive inefficiency was too steep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
M. Moody 21.3m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

An abysmal shooting night torpedoed his overall value, as he forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock. Coming off a massive scoring game, he lacked the same rhythm and short-circuited several possessions with poor decision-making. Even a decent defensive effort couldn't salvage the massive negative swing from his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Capitalized on his opportunities as a roll man to generate a massive spike in his usual offensive production. His vertical spacing and active rim protection provided a crucial spark for the second unit. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, converting hustle into tangible value.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
B. Hield 11.6m
2
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.4

A complete non-factor offensively, failing to provide the spacing his role demands. Without his perimeter threat to stretch the defense, the floor shrank for the second unit, leading to a steep negative impact. He was repeatedly targeted on defense, compounding the damage during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
P. Spencer 10.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Kept his head above water by making the right connective passes and playing disciplined perimeter defense. Though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, he avoided forcing the issue and let the game come to him. His value came entirely from low-mistake, system-oriented basketball in short bursts.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
G. Santos 10.9m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Snapped a hot streak of efficient scoring with a passive, low-impact stint. He hesitated on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the offensive flow and allowing the defense to reset. Without his usual aggressive slashing, his presence on the floor yielded a net negative result.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Completely vanished from the offensive equation, failing to register a single point after a stretch of highly efficient scoring. His inability to impact the game in transition or the half-court left the offense playing 4-on-5 during his minutes. Even his usually disruptive point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to move the needle.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0