GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 38.9m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.6

A steep drop in scoring efficiency and poor perimeter execution dragged his net impact into the abyss (-11.6). He consistently disrupted offensive momentum by bricking open corner looks and forcing contested drives into heavy traffic. While his defensive metrics remained respectable, his inability to punish defensive closeouts proved fatal to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 38.9m -24.1
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Deni Avdija 38.1m
25
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

Smothering wing defense (+9.2) was overshadowed by a highly inefficient offensive outing that stalled the team's momentum. He repeatedly forced the issue in isolation, resulting in contested, low-quality attempts that killed the shot clock. This offensive stagnation dragged his overall impact into the negative (-2.2) despite his relentless effort on the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.2
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 38.1m -23.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.7m
23
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Explosive scoring bursts were entirely offset by a string of careless live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. His net impact hovered just below zero (-0.3) because his dynamic shot creation was paired with frequent defensive lapses off the ball. A tendency to fall asleep on backdoor cuts erased the value of his highlight-reel offensive plays.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 34.7m -21.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 29.6m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

A sturdy interior presence yielded solid defensive metrics, but his overall impact barely broke even (+0.4) due to sluggish pick-and-roll coverage. He struggled to recover out to the perimeter, allowing opposing guards to walk into comfortable pull-up jumpers. His excellent rim-protection was ultimately neutralized by his vulnerability in space.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 29.6m -18.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Sidy Cissoko 27.9m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.0

Disastrous spacing and ill-advised perimeter attempts severely damaged his overall impact (-10.0) despite a rare uptick in scoring volume. Opposing defenses actively ignored him on the wing, allowing them to clog the paint and stifle the primary scorers. A lack of meaningful hustle plays (+0.4) compounded the offensive dead-weight he created during half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 27.9m -17.3
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 28.6m
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.3

An unexpected perimeter barrage stretched the defense to its breaking point, driving a solid positive impact (+4.3). He capitalized on defensive miscommunications with a quick trigger from deep, completely altering the opponent's scouting report. While his defensive rotations were occasionally late, his sheer offensive gravity more than compensated for the lapses.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 28.6m -17.7
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jrue Holiday 16.3m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

Uncharacteristic struggles to finish through contact resulted in a slightly negative impact (-0.5) during a truncated shift. He failed to generate his usual paint touches, settling instead for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups that bailed out the defense. Even his trademark point-of-attack pressure lacked its usual bite, allowing opposing guards too much comfort in early offense.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 16.3m -10.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Flawless offensive execution and elite vertical spacing defined a highly impactful (+11.1) rotation stint. He completely changed the geometry of the court as a lob threat, forcing the defense to collapse and surrender open perimeter looks. His instinctual weakside shot-blocking further amplified his value, erasing multiple defensive breakdowns by the guards.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +44.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 15.8m -9.7
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 10.1m
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

A passive approach during his brief stint resulted in a negative impact (-3.1), as he failed to assert himself on either end of the floor. He was repeatedly targeted in defensive switches, giving up deep post position to stronger wings. The lack of off-ball movement or hustle plays rendered his minutes entirely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 10.1m -6.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 36.6m
26
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.3

Masterful manipulation of drop coverage yielded a massive box-score rating, as he consistently found the soft spots in the midrange. However, his actual net impact (+3.3) was severely undercut by defensive targeting, as opponents relentlessly hunted him in switch actions. The offensive brilliance was partially offset by the sheer volume of blow-by drives he conceded.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 36.6m -22.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 34.4m
24
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

A dominant offensive rhythm fueled a massive box-score rating, highlighted by aggressive baseline cuts that punished ball-watching defenders. Despite the scoring surge, his net impact was dragged down by surprisingly low hustle metrics (+1.4) and late-game rotational lapses. He capitalized on open looks but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 34.4m -21.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 34.0m
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+9.1) completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation and fueled a stellar overall rating. He paired this lockdown coverage with excellent off-ball movement, punishing over-helps with timely weakside cuts. This two-way clinic resulted in a massive +11.6 net impact, driven heavily by his ability to generate live-ball turnovers.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 34.0m -21.0
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Josh Hart 30.9m
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite hustle metrics (+7.5) and relentless transition pushes defined his shift, consistently generating extra possessions through loose ball recoveries. However, his overall impact (+1.7) was heavily muted by defensive breakdowns during a rough second-quarter stretch. The elevated scoring output masked some underlying spacing issues when operating off the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 30.9m -19.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
20
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Efficient perimeter shooting stretched the opposing frontcourt, opening up crucial driving lanes for the guards. His overall impact remained positive (+4.9) despite virtually non-existent hustle contributions (+0.8) and a tendency to leak out early rather than secure contested defensive glass. He dominated his primary matchup offensively but gave back value through sluggish pick-and-roll coverages.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 27.8m -17.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.3

Severe shot-selection issues cratered his overall impact (-16.3), as he repeatedly settled for contested early-clock jumpers. While his point-of-attack pressure yielded minor defensive positives, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions killed the team's momentum. A disastrous third-quarter stint defined his night, characterized by forced passes and stalled offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 35.2m -21.8
Impact -16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.0

Absolute dominance as a rim deterrent (+13.6 Def) anchored a massive +17.0 net impact, proving his value goes far beyond scoring. He completely erased the opponent's interior attack during a pivotal second-half stretch, altering countless shots without fouling. Elite offensive rebounding and screen-setting further amplified his presence, generating crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +13.6
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 25.2m -15.6
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Errant shot-making and forced isolation attempts completely derailed his offensive value, leading to a steep -6.7 net impact. He routinely disrupted the team's offensive flow by pounding the ball late in the shot clock against set defenses. While he managed a few adequate defensive rotations, the sheer inefficiency of his touches proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 13.1m -8.1
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brief, ineffective stint resulted in a negative impact score due to missed defensive assignments in transition. He struggled to adjust to the game's pace, getting caught out of position on two separate fast breaks. The limited minutes offered no opportunity to establish any offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -95.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.7m -1.7
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0