GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 35.3m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.2

A brutal showing from beyond the arc ruined his offensive efficiency and dragged down his overall impact. Opponents dared him to shoot by utilizing drop coverage, and his inability to punish that scheme bogged down Portland's half-court spacing. The wasted offensive possessions were simply too costly to overcome, even with decent defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 35.3m -23.7
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 33.0m
12
pts
17
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Likely turnover issues or foul trouble skewed his impact negative despite his dominance on the glass. He controlled the paint defensively by altering multiple shots at the rim. However, offensive clumsiness and poor screen-setting execution gave away crucial possessions, undermining his massive rebounding advantage.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 33.0m -22.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 4
S Deni Avdija 28.8m
33
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+11.6

Functioning as a primary offensive engine, he leveraged his size to create mismatches and generate high-quality looks. His ability to consistently knock down perimeter shots opened up driving lanes, allowing him to spray passes to open shooters. The sheer volume of efficient offensive production easily outweighed any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 28.8m -19.3
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Shaedon Sharpe 27.3m
29
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+16.4

Elite shot-making and high-level offensive creation drove a massive positive impact. Torching defensive rotations with a lethal combination of perimeter shooting and aggressive drives, he completely dictated the pace of the game. Balancing his scoring with timely playmaking allowed him to control the floor during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +27.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 27.3m -18.3
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Murray 26.7m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Defensive activity and hustle plays generated positive value entirely on their own, masking a completely cold night from deep. Embracing a gritty role as a perimeter stopper, he consistently disrupted passing lanes and fought through screens. The breakout scoring volume was a bonus, but his defensive motor is what kept his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.2
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 26.7m -17.8
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 27.6m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.8

Poor perimeter efficiency and a lack of hustle plays completely negated his high scoring volume. Operating as a high-usage chucker in the second unit, he frequently settled for contested pull-ups instead of moving the ball. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition attacks, severely damaging his net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 27.6m -18.5
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Sidy Cissoko 25.5m
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.1

Staggering hustle metrics and scorching perimeter shooting made him an absolute revelation off the bench. He completely flipped the game's momentum with high-energy closeouts and relentless loose ball recoveries. This sudden explosion in offensive confidence transformed him into a lethal two-way weapon.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +11.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 25.5m -17.1
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 18.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Negative defensive value and an inability to connect from deep sank his overall impact. Struggling to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, he was frequently responsible for defensive breakdowns. His hesitancy to attack closeouts stalled ball movement and resulted in empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 18.9m -12.7
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Minimal offensive involvement and a very short leash resulted in a slightly negative footprint. Though he converted his only look at the rim, he failed to generate his usual defensive disruption. The short stint prevented him from establishing any real rhythm or altering the geometry of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 12.4m -8.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Converting his only field goal attempt and avoiding mistakes allowed him to make the most of a brief cameo. He provided a quick burst of competent execution during garbage time. The positive rating is purely a reflection of a clean, error-free stint in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 2.2m -1.4
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 2.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Zero offensive involvement and an absence of hustle stats characterized a completely invisible stint. He merely occupied space on the floor without altering shots or securing rebounds. The slight negative rating reflects empty minutes where the opponent marginally won the possession battle.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.2m -1.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 32.8m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.1

Empty offensive volume and likely high turnover costs severely punished his minutes on the floor. Unable to break down the primary point-of-attack defender, he was forced into low-percentage shots inside the arc. This inability to generate high-quality looks completely derailed his playmaking impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 32.8m -22.0
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Lauri Markkanen 31.6m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

Hustle plays and strong defensive metrics kept his head above water despite a middling shooting night. He anchored the frontcourt defense during crucial stretches, creating value through active contests and off-ball movement. Missed perimeter attempts ultimately capped his offensive ceiling, preventing a truly dominant rating.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 31.6m -21.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jusuf Nurkić 30.8m
21
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.9

Hyper-efficient interior finishing and elite rebounding drove a massive positive impact. He absolutely bullied his matchup in the paint, generating second-chance opportunities while locking down the defensive glass. Operating as a high-post hub without turning the ball over maximized Utah's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +29.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +42.6
Avg player in 30.8m -20.7
Impact +21.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.7

Poor shot selection caused a steep regression from his recent scoring tear, cratering his overall value. Rather than attacking the rim, he settled for contested jumpers that stalled the second-unit offense. Even with some defensive resistance, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 22.8m -15.2
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Svi Mykhailiuk 20.0m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.1

Cratering perimeter efficiency and negative defensive value completely tanked his overall impact. Forcing contested jumpers against tight closeouts, he failed to replicate his recent hot streak. The resulting long rebounds from his missed threes directly fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 20.0m -13.5
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.5

Hidden negatives, likely a high volume of live-ball turnovers, completely undid his strong box score metrics. While orchestrating the offense, his sloppy ball security gave away far too many easy transition points. It was a classic case of high-risk playmaking yielding a slightly negative overall return.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 29.8m -20.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Plummeting scoring efficiency and missed perimeter opportunities pushed his impact into the red. Struggling to find rhythm against physical wing defense, he failed to capitalize on spot-up looks. The inability to convert offensive chances stalled the team's momentum during his shifts, outweighing his solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 20.5m -13.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Reliable interior scoring and solid defensive positioning anchored a steady positive impact. He continued his streak of efficient shooting nights by picking his spots carefully as a roll man in the pick-and-roll. Disciplined shot selection and rim protection provided stabilizing rotation minutes despite a dip in scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 20.0m -13.5
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Hovering near neutral, his highly efficient finishing was offset by a lack of overall involvement. He capitalized on his limited touches as a cutter to break out of a recent slump. However, failing to command the glass or disrupt passing lanes kept his overall footprint minimal.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 18.5m -12.4
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Inefficient perimeter shooting and a lack of secondary contributions sank his overall rating. Forcing the issue offensively during a cold stretch, he took heavily contested looks early in the shot clock. Without defensive playmaking to fall back on, his missed shots directly hurt the team's net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.2m -8.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1