GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 35.4m
16
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.1

Relentless energy on the margins defined his night, keeping possessions alive and disrupting passing lanes. Paired that high motor with confident perimeter shooting to provide a reliable two-way spark that energized the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 35.4m -22.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.0m
27
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

A lethal combination of deep range and explosive finishing kept the opposing defense constantly off-balance. His stellar defensive rating suggests he was just as locked in on the perimeter, using his athleticism to blow up dribble hand-offs.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.9
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 34.0m -21.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 6
S Donovan Clingan 26.9m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Anchored the paint with imposing verticality, deterring multiple drives and altering shots at the rim. His screen-setting and offensive rebounding created crucial second-chance opportunities, maximizing his impact despite a low usage rate.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 26.9m -16.8
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 56.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 18.9m
15
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.1

Orchestrated the offense with veteran poise, manipulating pick-and-roll coverages to find open shooters. Uncharacteristically loose on the defensive end, but his timely shot-making from deep stabilized the backcourt during a rocky second quarter.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 18.9m -12.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deni Avdija 17.8m
20
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Pushed the pace effectively in semi-transition, using his size to create mismatches and generate high-quality looks. While his defensive impact was slightly negative, his aggressive downhill drives consistently collapsed the defense and yielded positive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 17.8m -11.2
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 33.5m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.6

A massive spike in scoring volume was entirely undone by reckless shot selection and a barrage of forced threes. The heavy diet of contested jumpers stalled offensive flow and allowed the opponent to consistently leak out in transition, tanking his net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 33.5m -21.0
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jerami Grant 23.0m
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Bogged down the offense with sticky isolation possessions that frequently ended in tough, contested mid-range pull-ups. Despite offering solid weak-side rim protection, his inability to stretch the floor or move the ball cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 23.0m -14.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Completely changed the geometry of the court defensively by erasing mistakes at the rim. Operated strictly as a lob threat and offensive rebounder, playing perfectly within his role to generate a highly efficient two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.3
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 19.3m -12.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 17.8m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Struggled to process the game at NBA speed, frequently finding himself out of position on both ends of the floor. A few costly decision-making errors in the half-court negated his efficient shooting and dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 17.8m -11.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 13.4m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided excellent length and disruption on the perimeter, completely locking down his primary assignment. However, his total unwillingness to look at the basket allowed defenders to play five-on-four, stalling the offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 13.4m -8.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 37.1m
32
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.9

Absolute dominance in the paint drove a massive net rating, fueled by aggressive rim-running and finishing through contact. His elite defensive anchoring completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt, turning away multiple attempts at the basket during a crucial third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +7.8
Defense +12.6
Raw total +42.2
Avg player in 37.1m -23.3
Impact +18.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Andrew Wiggins 31.2m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-level defensive engagement anchored his positive impact, as he effectively disrupted perimeter actions and fought over screens. Efficient shot selection within the flow of the offense kept his value afloat, rarely forcing action against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +9.7
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 31.2m -19.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 28.9m
6
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.9

Despite solid hustle metrics, his steep drop in offensive aggression and poorly timed turnovers dragged his net impact into the red. A stark reluctance to attack closeouts allowed the defense to sag off, neutralizing the spacing he usually provides.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 28.9m -18.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 28.0m
18
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

A brutal goose egg from beyond the arc severely capped his offensive ceiling and dragged his net impact slightly below neutral. While he found ways to score inside, the perimeter clanking stalled out critical half-court possessions and allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.0m -17.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Kept his head above water in limited minutes by playing mistake-free basketball and making quick connective reads. A timely perimeter make and steady positional defense ensured he was a slight positive during his brief rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -60.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 11.1m -6.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.3

Offensive rhythm completely evaporated, as a slew of forced, contested looks resulted in a dismal shooting night that cratered his overall impact. Failed to generate any downhill pressure, settling for difficult mid-range jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 25.8m -16.1
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive catch-and-shoot execution, breaking out of a recent slump in a major way. His floor-spacing gravity opened up the paint, driving a highly efficient offensive stint that swung the momentum in the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 24.6m -15.4
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 20.5m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Smothering point-of-attack defense nearly salvaged a disastrous offensive showing. However, bricking almost every look from the floor allowed defenders to completely ignore him, hopelessly clogging the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 20.5m -12.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Perimeter shot selection was highly questionable, with a barrage of missed threes short-circuiting offensive momentum. Despite decent defensive rotations, the sheer volume of empty possessions from deep proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 17.0m -10.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Scrappy wing play and solid defensive closeouts kept him competitive on the margins. Ultimately, a lack of offensive assertiveness and a few mistimed weak-side rotations prevented him from breaking into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 15.9m -9.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1