Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
POR lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
POR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Quickley 9/15 +4.8
Mamukelashvili 9/15 +4.4
Ingram 7/15 -0.1
Barnes 6/15 -3.2
Barrett Hard 4/9 -1.4
Agbaji 5/8 +0.6
Dick 4/5 +4.5
Battle Hard 1/1 +1.9
Mogbo Hard 0/1 -0.8
Shead Hard 0/1 -1.1

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Sharpe 10/23 -3.3
Holiday Hard 9/14 +7.3
Clingan Open 6/14 -4.4
Camara Hard 5/12 +1.4
Love Hard 4/9 +1.7
Grant Hard 2/8 -3.8
Cissoko Hard 1/6 -4.6
Cooke Hard 2/5 +0.1
Rupert Hard 0/5 -5.1
Hansen Hard 0/2 -1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
POR
45/85 Field Goals 39/98
52.9% Field Goal % 39.8%
9/29 3-Pointers 13/45
31.0% 3-Point % 28.9%
11/17 Free Throws 7/10
64.7% Free Throw % 70.0%
59.5% True Shooting % 47.9%
51 Total Rebounds 57
10 Offensive 14
36 Defensive 31
28 Assists 22
1.75 Assist/TO Ratio 1.47
16 Turnovers 13
7 Steals 7
9 Blocks 3
17 Fouls 11
64 Points in Paint 46
16 Fast Break Pts 7
16 Points off TOs 16
19 Second Chance Pts 15
23 Bench Points 24
13 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Donovan Clingan
13 PTS · 16 REB · 2 AST · 28.9 MIN
+24.62
2
Immanuel Quickley
20 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 34.3 MIN
+22.92
3
Jrue Holiday
21 PTS · 1 REB · 7 AST · 22.3 MIN
+18.66
4
Sandro Mamukelashvili
22 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 34.9 MIN
+17.9
5
Brandon Ingram
20 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 35.4 MIN
+17.75
6
Toumani Camara
16 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 37.1 MIN
+16.13
7
Ochai Agbaji
10 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 21.5 MIN
+10.76
8
Shaedon Sharpe
21 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 32.3 MIN
+10.16
9
Scottie Barnes
15 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 35.2 MIN
+9.49
10
Gradey Dick
10 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 24.2 MIN
+9.33
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 POR shot clock Team TURNOVER 110–98
Q4 0:03 TEAM offensive REBOUND 110–98
Q4 0:03 S. Barnes BLOCK (6 BLK) 110–98
Q4 0:03 MISS C. Love driving Layup - blocked 110–98
Q4 0:03 C. Love REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 110–98
Q4 0:07 S. Barnes BLOCK (5 BLK) 110–98
Q4 0:07 MISS Yang 7' turnaround Hook - blocked 110–98
Q4 0:27 I. Quickley driving finger roll Layup (20 PTS) 110–98
Q4 0:41 S. Sharpe lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 108–98
Q4 0:45 S. Barnes Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 108–98
Q4 0:45 S. Barnes Free Throw 1 of 2 (14 PTS) 107–98
Q4 0:45 S. Cissoko shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Barnes 2 FT) 106–98
Q4 0:49 S. Sharpe personal FOUL (1 PF) 106–98
Q4 0:52 S. Sharpe running alley-oop DUNK (21 PTS) (J. Holiday 7 AST) 106–98
Q4 0:56 T. Camara REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 106–96

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 37.1m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

Relentless motor on loose balls and sharp weak-side defensive rotations anchored a stellar two-way performance. He punished sagging defenders by confidently knocking down catch-and-shoot opportunities from the perimeter, perfectly complementing his high-energy style.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sidy Cissoko 32.6m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.8

Tremendous energy and loose-ball recoveries were completely undone by disastrous shot selection and spacing issues. Clanking multiple wide-open perimeter looks allowed the defense to pack the paint, stalling the half-court momentum and resulting in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -5.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 32.4m
21
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.8

High-volume inefficiency and forced isolation jumpers severely damaged his net impact despite the glossy scoring total. His tendency to stall the offense with heavily contested looks allowed the opponent to ignite their transition game, dragging his overall rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 28.9m
13
pts
16
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.2

Absolute dominance on the interior glass and intimidating rim protection fueled a monstrous overall impact rating. Even with a few forced looks from the perimeter, his ability to generate second-chance opportunities completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +19.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jrue Holiday 22.3m
21
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.4

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll and highly efficient shot creation drove a massive offensive rating. He consistently manipulated defensive coverages to find open teammates or punish drop schemes with his lethal mid-range pull-up.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +17.3
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caleb Love 28.7m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite finding his scoring rhythm to break a recent drought, catastrophic transition defense and costly live-ball turnovers completely tanked his net impact. Opponents relentlessly capitalized on his mistakes in the open floor, turning a decent shooting night into a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jerami Grant 26.4m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

Settling for contested perimeter fadeaways completely derailed his offensive rhythm and dragged down the unit's efficiency. Even though his individual defensive metrics remained respectable, his inability to stretch the floor or finish through contact fueled opponent fast breaks and created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Rayan Rupert 15.8m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.0

A disastrous shooting performance completely short-circuited the offense during his rotation minutes. Forcing contested jumpers while failing to provide any meaningful resistance on the other end resulted in a catastrophic net-negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring -3.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Aggressive shot-hunting during a brief stint provided a quick offensive spark, even if the selection was slightly erratic. He managed to stay engaged defensively just enough to ensure his quick-trigger perimeter attempts resulted in a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

Rushed attempts around the basket and an inability to establish deep post position rendered him an offensive liability. While he provided a brief flash of rim deterrence, his failure to convert easy looks quickly sent him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -75.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.4m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.4

Strong defensive rotations anchored his overall positive impact despite a cold night from beyond the arc. He compensated for the perimeter struggles by aggressively attacking the interior to generate a scoring surge well above his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +7.9
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 35.2m
15
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite defensive disruption and high-activity hustle plays kept his head above water. However, his overall impact was severely muted by forced shots in the paint and an inability to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 6
TO 4
22
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.4

Sizzling offensive efficiency and excellent floor-spacing drove a massive positive rating. He consistently exploited mismatches on the perimeter to generate a scoring surge, while chipping in enough secondary hustle plays to cement a highly productive outing.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+20.0

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll and highly efficient shot selection fueled a dominant two-way performance. His ability to pressure the point of attack perfectly complemented an offensive surge that kept the defense constantly on its heels.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +16.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 21.4m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

A complete inability to connect from deep cratered his offensive value and allowed defenders to sag off him. While he managed to salvage some utility through basic defensive positioning, the lack of scoring gravity severely disrupted the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Gradey Dick 24.2m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Flawless perimeter execution provided a desperately needed spacing boost, breaking him out of a recent shooting slump. However, his overall impact remained marginal due to a lack of physical engagement on the glass and minimal secondary playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 21.5m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Timely baseline cuts and opportunistic finishing at the rim sparked a massive scoring spike compared to his recent slump. He paired this interior efficiency with suffocating perimeter defense to deliver a highly impactful two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 19.7m
0
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

Passing up open looks completely neutralized his offensive gravity, allowing opposing bigs to camp in the lane and blow up plays. Despite initiating the offense reasonably well, his absolute refusal to look at the rim dragged down the unit's overall efficiency and led to negative lineup runs.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Defensive lapses and missed rotations quickly erased the value of his lone perimeter conversion. He failed to register any meaningful physical presence during his brief stint, making him a net negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.6

A completely invisible offensive shift resulted in a steep negative rating during his brief time on the court. He failed to secure positioning in the paint or disrupt any actions defensively, allowing opponents to score freely during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -68.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2