GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 37.9m
19
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

Relentless hustle (+5.0) and high-volume perimeter shooting buoyed his overall value. While his interior finishing left much to be desired, his willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense effectively. Active hands on the defensive end ensured his minutes remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 37.9m -20.6
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 37.2m
31
pts
19
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.4

Absolute domination of the defensive glass and elite playmaking fueled a monstrous analytical profile. He dictated the pace of the game through his rebounding, immediately initiating transition opportunities that overwhelmed the opponent. Even with a broken outside jumper, his sheer physical imposition controlled the contest.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 19/23 (82.6%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +27.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +36.6
Avg player in 37.2m -20.2
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Murray 35.2m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite a massive scoring surge and efficient shooting, his overall impact slipped into the red. Defensive lapses in crucial moments or unseen rotational errors likely offset his impressive box score production. The raw scoring masked underlying structural issues during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 35.2m -19.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 34.4m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

A heavy diet of forced, inefficient jumpers severely damaged his offensive value. Even though he provided strong defensive resistance (+6.5), the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged his net score deep into the negative. His inability to find the bottom of the net derailed the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 34.4m -18.6
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Sidy Cissoko 20.9m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Poor shot selection and a failure to convert open looks cratered his overall impact. While he showed minor flashes of hustle, his offensive possessions were essentially dead ends that stalled momentum. The inability to punish defensive gaps made him a liability during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 20.9m -11.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

Defensive breakdowns (-1.2) and a lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in a disastrous net rating. Despite showing some energy in the hustle department (+3.8), he bled value by failing to contain his assignments on the perimeter. The inability to string together stops completely derailed his stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 21.8m -11.8
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 19.2m
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

A massive spike in offensive usage was completely undermined by erratic, low-efficiency shot chucking. While he provided decent defensive resistance, the sheer number of empty trips down the floor neutralized his scoring bump. His aggressive but misguided shot selection resulted in a perfectly flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 19.2m -10.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Elite rim deterrence (+5.7) and highly efficient interior finishing defined his highly productive shift. He capitalized on drop coverages to score easily around the basket, continuing a strong streak of efficient play. His vertical spacing and defensive anchoring completely changed the geometry of the court.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 19.1m -10.3
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

A complete lack of hustle and negative defensive metrics doomed his brief stint on the floor. He floated through his minutes without making any physical imprint on the game, failing to generate extra possessions. The passive approach quickly pushed his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -51.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 6.5m -3.5
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Rushing his looks and failing to convert inside the arc quickly sank his value during limited action. He offered virtually no resistance or hustle to compensate for the empty offensive trips. The inability to establish any physical presence made his brief rotation highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 4.5m -2.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 3.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Solid defensive positioning (+3.2) barely kept his impact in the green during a very brief cameo. He missed his few offensive opportunities but avoided making catastrophic mistakes on the other end. His value came entirely from holding the fort defensively while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -115.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 3.4m -1.8
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
26
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

Consistent interior scoring and steady playmaking drove a solid, if unspectacular, positive impact. Missing all his looks from beyond the arc slightly capped his ceiling, preventing a truly dominant analytical grade. Still, his ability to generate high-quality offensive possessions kept the overall engine humming.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 35.8m -19.5
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Williams 34.4m
16
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-volume missed shots dragged down what was otherwise a stellar defensive and hustle (+3.8) performance. His inability to find an efficient rhythm from the floor nearly erased his positive contributions elsewhere. Ultimately, his playmaking and defensive disruption kept him just above water.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 34.4m -18.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 29.6m
19
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.9

Elite rim protection and active hustle (+5.1) fueled a dominant two-way showing. He punished mismatches inside with highly efficient finishing, surging well past his recent offensive averages. This inside-out dominance created a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +8.9
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 29.6m -16.1
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 28.5m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Defensive metrics (+6.3) anchored his positive overall impact, compensating for average hustle numbers. He capitalized on his offensive touches to score well above his recent baseline, providing crucial secondary spacing. The solid two-way effort kept his overall net influence firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 28.5m -15.4
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cason Wallace 21.4m
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

An offensive disappearing act severely crippled his net impact despite strong hustle metrics (+4.1). Failing to convert open looks tanked his overall value, marking a steep drop-off from his usual production. His perimeter defense simply wasn't enough to offset the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 21.4m -11.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Opportunistic shot selection and high-energy hustle (+4.6) defined this highly efficient outing. He capitalized on secondary actions to score efficiently, easily surpassing his recent production trends. His constant off-ball movement forced the defense into uncomfortable rotations all night.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 28.7m -15.5
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

A lack of overall aggression limited his influence, causing his net rating to slip into the negative despite decent hustle numbers. He simply didn't command enough offensive usage to make a dent, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. Passive stretches ultimately outweighed his occasional flashes of energy.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 20.0m -10.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 14.7m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.2

Lethal floor spacing was the primary catalyst for his massive positive swing. By punishing defensive rotations from deep, he created immense gravity that opened up driving lanes for teammates. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he generated on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 14.7m -8.0
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Bricklaying from the perimeter completely undermined his excellent defensive positioning (+5.6). He settled for outside jumpers instead of attacking, resulting in a sharp decline from his recent scoring efficiency. The inability to stretch the floor negated the value of his rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 13.6m -7.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Perfect perimeter execution provided a massive scoring bump, yet his overall impact remained slightly negative due to non-existent hustle metrics. He failed to generate the loose-ball recoveries or extra possessions that typically define his role. The offensive efficiency was a welcome surprise, but the lack of grit limited his total value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 13.5m -7.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1