GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 39.6m
10
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance cratered what was otherwise an elite defensive showing. His inability to punish sagging defenders clogged the paint and stalled the team's half-court execution. The immense value generated by his relentless hustle (+5.9) and lockdown defense (+6.4) was entirely erased by the wasted offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +5.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 39.6m -19.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deni Avdija 36.5m
25
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.5

Extreme offensive inefficiency completely undermined a spectacular defensive performance (+7.3). Forcing a massive volume of shots while struggling to convert inside the arc resulted in numerous empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The sheer quantity of missed looks outweighed his impressive playmaking and defensive versatility.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 36.5m -18.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 34.0m
8
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Imposing rim protection (+7.3 defense) kept his overall impact slightly in the green. He dominated the glass and altered countless shots in the paint, serving as the absolute anchor of the defensive scheme. However, a lack of offensive gravity prevented his rating from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 34.0m -16.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 40.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kris Murray 28.1m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Surgical shot selection powered a massive box score surge and a solid overall positive rating. By capitalizing on defensive breakdowns and only taking high-value looks, he broke out of a recent scoring lull with incredible efficiency. His low-mistake approach ensured that almost every offensive touch resulted in a positive outcome.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 28.1m -14.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 26.6m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Heavy shot volume yielded diminishing returns, keeping his overall impact barely above neutral. Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the rim dragged down his efficiency. He managed to salvage his rating through solid defensive rotations (+4.0), but the offensive ceiling was capped by poor shot quality.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 26.6m -13.1
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 33.5m
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

A sudden offensive explosion drove a massive box metric, though his overall impact was muted by defensive limitations. Finding his stroke from the perimeter forced defenses to stretch, opening up the floor after a recent stretch of invisibility. While his scoring carried the load, a lack of elite disruption on the other end kept his net rating modest.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 33.5m -16.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 15.4m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

A lack of defensive awareness (-0.5) and overall passivity resulted in a deeply negative impact. Even though he saw a rare scoring spike compared to his usual output, he failed to influence the game's broader dynamics. Opponents consistently exploited his positioning, negating the minor value he added through hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 15.4m -7.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Rayan Rupert 12.9m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Fading into the background offensively caused his impact to slip into the red. After a recent stretch of higher usage, his reluctance to hunt his own shot allowed the defense to ignore him in half-court sets. Minimal defensive friction (+0.8) wasn't enough to compensate for playing 4-on-5 on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 12.9m -6.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Perfect execution in a micro-role resulted in a tidy positive rating. He took exactly what the defense gave him, converting his only look while maintaining solid positional discipline. This low-mistake, high-efficiency approach maximized his value during a short rotational burst.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 7.9m -4.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Duop Reath 5.5m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Brief rotational minutes yielded a slightly negative rating due to offensive invisibility. He provided a marginal boost through positional defense and hustle, but failing to convert his lone look stalled momentum. The stint was too short to generate any meaningful rhythm on either end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 5.5m -2.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 36.4m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

A passive offensive approach dragged his overall impact into the negative despite decent box metrics. Passing up perimeter looks entirely allowed the defense to sag and disrupt the team's spacing. This stark drop in aggression from his recent scoring tear fundamentally altered the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 36.4m -18.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 35.6m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite two-way impact was driven by suffocating perimeter defense (+9.8) and highly efficient shot selection from deep. He maintained his recent scoring rhythm while generating significant value through hustle plays. The combination of spacing the floor and locking down his matchup anchored the team's success.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.8
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 35.6m -17.8
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 4
S Tyus Jones 34.9m
16
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.0

An explosive breakout from a recent shooting slump fueled a massive +17.2 box metric. Capitalizing on open catch-and-shoot opportunities from deep completely changed the geometry of the court. His flawless floor generalship and timely hustle plays (+4.4) compounded the damage of his sudden scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 34.9m -17.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Anthony Black 32.5m
22
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.3

High-volume shot creation yielded a strong positive impact despite some inefficiency inside the arc. Forcing defenders to respect his perimeter stroke opened up driving lanes that generated secondary actions. His relentless defensive pressure (+5.9) and hustle effectively compensated for the missed contested layups.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.9
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 32.5m -16.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Continued his streak of highly efficient interior finishing to anchor a massive +12.9 box score impact. His physical presence inside dictated the terms of engagement, combining stout rim protection (+5.6 defense) with steady screen-setting. By staying within his role and avoiding forced shots, he maximized his value on both ends.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 30.8m -15.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Noah Penda 23.8m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Poor shot selection and bricked attempts severely punished his overall rating. Although he showed a massive uptick in offensive aggression compared to his recent baseline, forcing contested looks derailed possessions. Solid hustle metrics (+3.7) weren't nearly enough to offset the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 23.8m -11.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Defensive disruption was the primary catalyst for his positive rating in limited minutes. He operated strictly within the flow of the offense, taking only high-percentage looks to preserve efficiency. His ability to blow up opposing actions (+4.3 defense) provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 16.6m -8.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jamal Cain 12.8m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Elite energy and off-ball activity drove a stellar impact score despite a massive drop in scoring volume. He abandoned his recent scoring tear to focus entirely on doing the dirty work, posting a massive +5.0 hustle rating. This selfless shift toward defensive disruption and loose-ball recovery provided massive hidden value.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 12.8m -6.3
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Complete lack of physical engagement (zero hustle impact) dragged his rating into the red. Fading into the background offensively broke his recent rhythm, making him a non-factor in half-court sets. The inability to generate any defensive friction allowed opponents to attack his side of the floor without resistance.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 11.6m -5.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A brief, ineffective stint was defined by empty offensive possessions and a total scoring shutout. Rushing his perimeter looks prevented him from finding the rhythm that had fueled his recent efficiency. While he offered slight defensive resistance, the missed shots in short minutes quickly compounded into a negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0