GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 38.1m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

A disastrous volume of missed perimeter shots absolutely torpedoed his overall rating. While his signature hustle and defensive versatility were present, the sheer number of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. Opponents blatantly sagged off him, wrecking the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.7%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 38.1m -21.1
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 33.2m
24
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Aggressive downhill driving and efficient finishing at the cup drove a highly productive scoring night. However, defensive lapses and a handful of careless ball-handling mistakes kept his net impact from matching the gaudy box score. His ability to collapse the defense was the engine for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 33.2m -18.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Donovan Clingan 28.4m
9
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Dominant work on the glass was undone by ill-advised attempts to stretch the floor. Missing multiple close-range bunnies and forcing outside shots negated his otherwise stellar interior presence. Foul trouble likely clipped his wings just as he was establishing physical dominance in the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 28.4m -15.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Sidy Cissoko 22.0m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

A massive spike in scoring volume compared to his recent struggles was entirely offset by poor shot selection. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow and fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. Defensive passivity further compounded the negative impact of his missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 22.0m -12.1
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jrue Holiday 20.5m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.3

Elite point-of-attack defense and disruptive hands generated immense value despite a dip in his usual scoring output. He dictated the tempo of the game by blowing up pick-and-roll sets and forcing the ball out of the primary creator's hands. The veteran perfectly balanced low-usage offense with suffocating defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.8
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 20.5m -11.3
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Love 25.6m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

A massive scoring surge from his recent baseline was neutralized by erratic decision-making in the half-court. While he provided a much-needed offensive punch, forced isolation jumpers and defensive gambles flattened his overall impact. The high defensive metrics suggest he generated deflections, but likely gave points right back via fouls.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 25.6m -14.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Jerami Grant 23.0m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

A heavy reliance on getting to the foul line salvaged an otherwise pedestrian shooting performance. His impact was muted by a lack of defensive rebounding and a failure to contain dribble penetration on the perimeter. He operated primarily as an isolation safety valve, which stalled ball movement.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 23.0m -12.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
6
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.3

Absolute dominance as a rim deterrent and vertical spacer drove the highest impact score on the roster. He completely erased interior scoring threats while maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the basket. His flawless execution of his role—rebounding, blocking shots, and catching lobs—was a masterclass in low-usage efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +50.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +10.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 19.6m -10.8
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 16.2m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

A scorching hot shooting night off the bench completely warped the game's momentum in his team's favor. Hitting timely catch-and-shoot threes punished defensive rotations and opened up the driving lanes for others. His length on the perimeter also disrupted passing lanes, compounding his offensive explosion.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +59.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 16.2m -8.9
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Duop Reath 13.3m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Willingness to let it fly from deep kept opposing bigs out of the paint, even if the efficiency was middling. He provided just enough floor-spacing gravity to justify his minutes, though a lack of interior physicality limited his ceiling. A serviceable stretch-big performance that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +71.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 13.3m -7.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.9m
12
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
-15.4

A severe drop-off from his recent scoring tear, heavily penalized by empty possessions and forced looks from deep. The massive gap between his defensive metrics and overall impact points to a disastrous turnover rate that fueled opponent transition runs. He completely lost his rhythm against physical frontcourt matchups.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 37.9m -21.1
Impact -15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.8m
26
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

An uncharacteristic barrage of missed three-pointers dragged down what could have been a monster impact score. While his scoring volume spiked dramatically, the sheer number of perimeter bricks bailed out the defense. His elite rim protection and interior hustle partially salvaged the erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 5/15 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.5
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 36.8m -20.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 33.4m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite highly efficient interior scoring and stellar point-of-attack defense, hidden mistakes cratered his overall value. Careless live-ball turnovers and ill-timed fouls negated his defensive contributions. The lack of perimeter spacing allowed defenders to pack the paint during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 33.4m -18.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.6

Offensive stagnation defined this outing, as he struggled to replicate his recent high-scoring form. The playmaking was solid, but forced passes into traffic resulted in costly giveaways that tanked his net impact. He settled for contested jumpers rather than attacking the teeth of the defense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 29.4m -16.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Vít Krejčí 20.8m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Efficient perimeter shooting stabilized the second unit's spacing during key stretches. However, defensive lapses and a lack of rebounding presence kept his overall impact grounded. The positive hustle metrics suggest active hands, even if it didn't translate to a massive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 20.8m -11.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CJ McCollum 28.7m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.9

Inefficient perimeter chucking suppressed his overall value, even as he found ways to manufacture points inside the arc. The veteran guard compensated for a cold shooting night with surprisingly robust hustle and defensive engagement. A high volume of empty possessions prevented him from taking over the game.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 28.7m -16.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Active defensive rotations and rim deterrence kept his impact in the green despite a clunky shooting night. He stretched the floor just enough to keep bigs honest, though missed bunnies at the rim limited his upside. A solid rotational stint defined by high-energy closeouts rather than offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 21.2m -11.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Kennard 18.6m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Completely neutralized by aggressive closeouts that ran him off the three-point line. The inability to generate his own shot or facilitate off the bounce led to stagnant half-court sets during his minutes. Defensive limitations were magnified when his perimeter stroke wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -57.8
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 18.6m -10.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brutal shooting slump rendered him a liability on the offensive end. Missing wide-open catch-and-shoot looks allowed the defense to aggressively double the primary ball-handlers. Without his typical floor-spacing gravity, his presence actively bogged down the unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 13.2m -7.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2