GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 39.6m
25
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Elite off-ball movement and scorching perimeter shooting punished the defense for sagging into the paint. Beyond the scoring punch, his relentless motor generated massive hustle metrics by keeping loose balls alive and extending possessions. This high-energy, floor-spacing performance was a critical stabilizing force for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +8.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 39.6m -22.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 35.8m
20
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

Struggling to find clean looks against set defenses, his inefficient finishing at the rim bled away offensive value. He tried to salvage his night through active defensive rotations, but the missed bunnies ultimately proved too costly. The inability to convert high-percentage drives defined a frustrating regression from his recent scoring tear.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 35.8m -19.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.7m
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

A heavy diet of contested jumpers severely depressed his overall efficiency, dragging his net impact into negative territory. While the scoring volume looks adequate on paper, the sheer number of wasted possessions stalled the offense's rhythm. He failed to generate enough rim pressure to compensate for an icy perimeter touch.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 34.7m -19.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 33.3m
8
pts
15
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Dominant rim protection and elite rebounding completely overshadowed a rather clunky offensive showing. Even while forcing ill-advised perimeter shots, his ability to anchor the paint stifled opponent drives. Operating as a defensive hub, he dictated the physical terms of the game despite his own scoring limitations.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 33.3m -18.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Sidy Cissoko 22.2m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Flawless shot selection and perfect execution yielded a massive surge in overall value, completely shattering his recent slump. By punishing defensive rotations with timely, uncontested looks, he provided a massive spark off the bench. His disciplined closeouts on the perimeter further amplified this unexpected two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 122.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +60.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 22.2m -12.3
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Love 24.6m
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A sudden explosion of perimeter scoring masked significant defensive lapses that kept his overall impact slightly negative. He hunted his own shot aggressively, hitting from deep but frequently getting lost on back-door cuts and defensive rotations. The microwave scoring was a welcome surprise, yet it was entirely offset by what he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 24.6m -13.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 19.1m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his stint on the floor, failing to connect on a single field goal attempt. Opposing defenses entirely ignored him on the perimeter, which suffocated driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. A few minor hustle plays did nothing to mask how much of an offensive liability he was during these minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 19.1m -10.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Hansen Yang 13.2m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Forcing outside shots well beyond his comfort zone resulted in a string of empty possessions that killed momentum. He looked completely out of sync against quicker defenders, failing to establish any interior presence. This erratic shot selection directly fueled opponent transition opportunities, heavily dragging down his net score.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 13.2m -7.4
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Duop Reath 10.8m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Capitalizing perfectly on his limited touches, he provided a highly efficient spark as a stretch big. He knocked down his only perimeter look to pull rim protectors away from the basket, opening up the paint for slashers. Solid positional defense ensured his brief stint was a resounding net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 10.8m -6.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

A remarkably brief cameo saw him operate strictly as a passive screener, failing to log a single field goal attempt. He didn't have enough time to establish his usual vertical spacing or defensive intimidation. The sheer lack of involvement in the offensive flow resulted in a mildly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 6.6m -3.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
HOU Houston Rockets
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

A disastrous perimeter shooting night completely cratered his offensive value, missing every single attempt from beyond the arc. Despite the bricklaying, he salvaged some utility through relentless defensive rotations and high-end rim contests. His inability to stretch the floor ultimately clogged the paint for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 0/10 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +13.6
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 40.6m -22.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Kevin Durant 39.4m
30
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.6

Elite shot-making fueled a massive positive impact, as he consistently punished smaller defenders on the perimeter. His defensive engagement was equally vital, locking down passing lanes and securing the glass to generate stops. The veteran's efficiency remains a steadying force for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 39.4m -21.8
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Amen Thompson 37.0m
24
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Relentless downhill attacks drove a highly productive offensive outing, continuing a trend of highly efficient finishing at the rim. Even with a broken jumper from outside, his ability to collapse the defense created consistent advantages. Active hands in the passing lanes added just enough defensive value to keep his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 37.0m -20.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Steven Adams 32.7m
5
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operating strictly as a low-usage enforcer, his value stemmed entirely from setting bone-crushing screens and anchoring the drop coverage. He didn't force a single bad shot, taking only what the defense conceded around the basket. This disciplined, physical approach kept the interior stable throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 32.7m -18.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tari Eason 15.5m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Limited minutes and a passive offensive approach prevented him from making a significant imprint on the game. While his defensive instincts remained sharp, the lack of aggressive rim pressure left his overall impact hovering near neutral. He struggled to find the rhythm that had fueled his recent scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 15.5m -8.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Forcing the issue offensively resulted in a high volume of empty possessions, dragging his net impact slightly into the red. While he hit a few timely perimeter shots, the sheer number of contested mid-range clanks disrupted the team's offensive flow. Solid hustle metrics barely prevented this inefficient gunning from becoming a major liability.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 33.6m -18.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Prolonged shooting woes continued to bleed value, as clanking a barrage of attempts from deep severely damaged the team's spacing. He offered virtually no resistance or playmaking to offset the wasted offensive possessions. Opponents are openly ignoring him on the perimeter, completely stalling the half-court offense when he is on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 18.0m -10.0
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 12.2m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

A purely rotational shift saw him provide energetic but largely inconsequential minutes. His defensive activity helped stall a few opponent sets, but a lack of shooting gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint. He simply didn't generate enough chaotic hustle plays to overcome his offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 12.2m -6.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Clint Capela 11.1m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Zero offensive production was surprisingly masked by excellent rim protection and rebounding fundamentals during a brief stint. He focused entirely on sealing off the paint and altering shots at the summit. By strictly playing within his role and avoiding mistakes, he managed to swing momentum favorably without taking a single meaningful shot.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +53.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 11.1m -6.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1