GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Sidy Cissoko 31.9m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.5

Broke out of a massive scoring slump by confidently stepping into catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corner. However, his aggressive closeouts frequently resulted in costly shooting fouls that bailed out stagnant opponent possessions. Those undisciplined defensive moments and a few errant passes negated his breakout offensive night.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 31.9m -19.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Shaedon Sharpe 31.8m
20
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.9

Impact cratered due to a high volume of forced, off-balance jumpers against set defenses. His inability to recognize double-teams led to several live-ball turnovers that directly fueled opponent fast breaks. The raw scoring numbers completely masked a highly detrimental, ball-stopping performance.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 31.8m -19.6
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 29.6m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Generated tremendous value on the margins by crashing the offensive glass and keeping possessions alive with relentless energy. Unfortunately, that hustle was undone by poor shot selection, specifically forcing heavily contested looks late in the clock. The resulting long rebounds frequently sparked opponent transition attacks, dragging his net score down.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 29.6m -18.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 28.2m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Bogged down the offensive flow with too many isolation sets that ended in heavily contested, low-percentage fadeaways. While he competed well on the defensive end by switching onto smaller guards, his offensive tunnel vision stalled team momentum. The empty offensive trips allowed the opposition to build a steady lead during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 28.2m -17.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 27.0m
8
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.2

Struggled to finish through contact around the rim, leading to a frustratingly inefficient scoring night. He salvaged his overall impact by completely dominating the defensive glass and altering a half-dozen shots in the restricted area. His sheer physical presence anchored the paint enough to outweigh the missed bunnies.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 27.0m -16.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 46.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
Caleb Love 29.6m
21
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Caught fire offensively by aggressively attacking closeouts and finishing creatively around the basket. Despite the massive scoring surge, his overall impact was suppressed by a tendency to gamble in the passing lanes, leaving his teammates compromised in rotation. The offensive fireworks narrowly outweighed his defensive indiscipline.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 29.6m -18.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Rayan Rupert 19.4m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.0

Looked hesitant and out of rhythm, repeatedly clanking wide-open spot-up opportunities from the perimeter. His offensive struggles bled into his defensive focus, resulting in missed rotations and late closeouts. A complete lack of two-way execution made him a severe liability while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 19.4m -12.0
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Blake Wesley 19.1m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

Struggled to organize the offense under heavy perimeter pressure, resulting in stalled sets and late-clock grenades. While he hit the few open looks he took, his inability to penetrate the defense and create advantages severely limited the team's ceiling. The lack of offensive initiation ultimately drove his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 19.1m -11.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Provided a masterclass in vertical spacing, converting nearly every lob and dump-off pass into high-percentage points. His defensive awareness was equally sharp, as he consistently deterred drivers without committing cheap fouls. A highly efficient, mistake-free stint that perfectly anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 18.4m -11.4
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Failed to make any tangible imprint on the game during a very brief rotation. Was caught out of position on a pick-and-roll coverage, surrendering a quick bucket. A purely cardio stint that resulted in a minor negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.6m -1.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Brought immediate energy to the floor by fighting through screens and applying aggressive ball pressure. Managed to convert a quick transition opportunity to get on the board. A solid, mistake-free cameo that left the team slightly better off.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 2.6m -1.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
14
pts
0
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.1

Forced too many contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock, cratering his usual offensive efficiency. Although he generated quality looks for teammates as a primary facilitator, costly ball-handling errors in traffic dragged his net rating down. His inability to break down his primary defender consistently stalled the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 31.5m -19.4
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jaylon Tyson 29.5m
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite a massive offensive surge fueled by flawless perimeter execution, his overall impact slipped into the red. Defensive rotations were consistently a half-step slow, allowing blow-bys that entirely negated his scoring output. Costly live-ball turnovers in traffic ultimately tipped his net rating into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 29.5m -18.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jarrett Allen 29.5m
40
pts
17
reb
5
ast
Impact
+47.6

Completely dismantled the opposing frontcourt with a relentless barrage of rim-runs and deep post seals. His astronomical impact score was driven by elite finishing and suffocating rim protection that deterred countless drives. Controlled the paint on both ends to string together yet another highly efficient, dominant performance.

Shooting
FG 16/23 (69.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 40.8%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +42.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense +17.7
Raw total +65.7
Avg player in 29.5m -18.1
Impact +47.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 29.4m
22
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Punished drop coverages by hunting transition threes and curling tightly off pin-down screens. While his blistering perimeter efficiency spiked his box score metrics, his overall impact was muted by defensive limitations. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, clawing back points and narrowing his positive margin.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 111.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 29.4m -18.1
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dean Wade 26.4m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Anchored the weak-side defense effectively with timely helps and strong closeouts, driving a robust defensive rating. However, his reluctance to attack closeouts bogged down the half-court offense and ruined spacing. A few poorly timed offensive fouls ultimately dragged his net impact slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +59.0
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.9
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 26.4m -16.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
+5.1

Acted as a pure floor general, dissecting the defense with pinpoint kick-outs and lob passes despite his own shooting struggles. His value skyrocketed on the margins through elite point-of-attack defense and relentless ball pressure. Generated multiple extra possessions by diving for loose balls and blowing up passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +13.3
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 27.7m -17.1
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by making decisive cuts to the basket and finishing strong above the rim. This unexpected offensive punch provided a crucial spark for the second unit. Maintained a positive overall impact by staying disciplined on closeouts and avoiding cheap fouls on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 21.5m -13.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 16.4m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Kept the offensive flow moving with quick connective passes and smart spatial awareness. His primary value came from blowing up dribble hand-offs and navigating screens flawlessly on the defensive end. Played a quiet but highly effective role in stabilizing the perimeter defense during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 16.4m -10.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Found some success scoring out of the pick-and-pop, but his heavy feet in drop coverage allowed guards to walk into comfortable floaters. The defensive bleed in the paint completely erased his offensive contributions. A distinct lack of rim deterrence during his short stint ultimately pushed his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 13.6m -8.4
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Looked completely out of sync offensively, passing up open looks and failing to establish deep post position. While he contributed a few solid hedge-and-recovers on the defensive end, his inability to threaten the basket allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The resulting offensive stagnation resulted in a firmly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 9.4m -5.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Maximized a brief cameo by immediately attacking a closeout for a high-percentage finish. Stayed vertically disciplined around the basket to alter a shot on the other end. Provided a flawless, albeit tiny, burst of two-way execution.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 2.6m -1.5
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Rushed a contested perimeter jumper early in the shot clock during his brief appearance. Failed to get back in transition immediately after, surrendering an easy fast-break layup. Those quick lapses in judgment immediately tanked his short-term impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 2.6m -1.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1