GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 38.1m
13
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

High-energy defensive rotations were completely overshadowed by poor shot selection from the perimeter. Settling for contested outside looks bailed out the defense and triggered long rebounds that fueled opponent fast breaks. The stark contrast between his defensive metrics and negative overall impact highlights the cost of his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 38.1m -25.2
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jerami Grant 32.7m
23
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.1

Scoring volume disguised a highly damaging performance characterized by defensive apathy. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts and offered zero resistance at the point of attack, bleeding points on the other end. The offensive production simply could not outpace the structural damage caused by his lack of defensive engagement.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 32.7m -21.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Shaedon Sharpe 31.4m
19
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Forced the issue offensively with a steady diet of heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock. This poor shot selection not only tanked his own efficiency but actively disrupted the team's half-court rhythm. Minor defensive contributions were nowhere near enough to salvage the damage done by his erratic offensive decision-making.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 31.4m -20.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 29.4m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.8

Uncharacteristic struggles from beyond the arc allowed defenders to go under screens and blow up pick-and-roll actions. While his point-of-attack defense remained typically stout, the offensive spacing issues he created bogged down the unit. The inability to punish sagging defenders ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 29.4m -19.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Donovan Clingan 26.5m
14
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.0

A shocking display of perimeter touch completely warped the opposing defense's game plan. Forcing opposing bigs to step out to the three-point line opened up massive driving lanes for the guards. He compounded this offensive versatility with stifling drop-coverage defense that successfully walled off the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.9
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 26.5m -17.5
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 56.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 21.0m
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.4

An unexpected offensive breakout kept his head above water despite glaring defensive deficiencies. He found success attacking closeouts and finishing through contact, providing a desperately needed scoring punch. However, constant struggles to navigate ball screens prevented his impact score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 21.0m -13.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Blake Wesley 19.9m
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

Defensive lapses severely undermined a surprisingly efficient scoring punch off the bench. He repeatedly died on screens and lost track of his assignment off the ball, forcing teammates into impossible rotation situations. The points he generated were immediately given right back through poor awareness on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 19.9m -13.2
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Elite vertical spacing and devastating roll gravity completely collapsed the defense whenever he entered the action. He anchored the interior with terrifying weak-side shot blocking, erasing multiple mistakes by the perimeter defenders. A perfectly executed role-player performance that maximized every second of his court time.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -41.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.7
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 19.0m -12.6
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Salvaged a brutal shooting night by leaning heavily into his defensive responsibilities and off-ball hustle. He generated extra possessions through timely deflections and excellent positional awareness on the weak side. His willingness to do the dirty work ensured he remained a net positive despite the perimeter struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 13.6m -9.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 8.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

A disastrously brief stint defined by forced shots and a complete lack of offensive flow. He derailed multiple possessions by ignoring open teammates to hunt his own offense, coming up entirely empty. The sheer density of negative plays in such a short window severely punished the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -3.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 8.3m -5.5
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Royce O'Neale 36.2m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Strong rotational defense and solid hustle metrics were entirely undone by costly mistakes in transition. His inability to connect from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. The massive gap between his defensive metrics and overall negative impact points to crippling live-ball turnovers during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 36.2m -23.9
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Grayson Allen 36.0m
24
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

Elite floor spacing and perimeter shot-making masked underlying issues that dragged his overall rating into the red. Repeated defensive breakdowns at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that compromised the team's entire rotation. Despite the scoring surge, his inability to stay in front of his assignment proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 36.0m -23.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
30
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+17.2

An unexpected perimeter explosion completely shattered his recent slump and drove an elite overall rating. He leveraged aggressive off-ball movement to find open pockets, punishing drop coverage with ruthless efficiency from deep. Exceptional point-of-attack defense added immense value, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 8/14 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +27.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +7.3
Raw total +39.1
Avg player in 33.2m -21.9
Impact +17.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 31.3m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.2

Impact cratered due to an abysmal shot selection that repeatedly bailed out the defense. Forcing contested jumpers early in the clock resulted in a barrage of empty possessions that allowed the opponent to dictate the pace. A passable defensive effort was completely overshadowed by his offensive futility.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 31.3m -20.7
Impact -18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 26.1m
24
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.1

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact score. He punished defensive rotations with elite finishing around the rim, capitalizing on deep post seals to generate high-percentage looks. High-level rim protection further anchored a performance that dictated the terms of engagement on both ends.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +27.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 26.1m -17.3
Impact +20.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+23.6

Relentless ball pressure and elite disruption defined a game-changing stint off the bench. He generated massive value through pure hustle, blowing up dribble hand-offs and creating extra possessions with sheer physical effort. Efficient opportunistic scoring perfectly complemented a defensive masterclass that completely derailed the opponent's second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +6.6
Defense +12.8
Raw total +38.7
Avg player in 22.8m -15.1
Impact +23.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 21.5m
8
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

A relatively quiet night where solid interior finishing was offset by a lack of overall playmaking aggression. Opposing bigs successfully neutralized his roll-gravity, forcing him into a passive offensive role that stalled half-court sets. He maintained his streak of high-percentage looks but failed to generate the secondary rim protection needed to push his impact into the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 21.5m -14.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped the second unit during his minutes. A refusal to attack closeouts allowed the defense to play five-on-four, stalling out multiple half-court sets. While he didn't make glaring defensive errors, his lack of assertiveness created a stagnant environment that dragged down the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 14.9m -9.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Functioned purely as a placeholder, logging empty minutes without attempting a single shot. His inability to command defensive attention shrunk the floor for the primary creators. Even with adequate defensive positioning, the complete lack of offensive threat made him a structural liability.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 9.3m -6.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 8.7m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Maximized a brief rotational stint by capitalizing on spot-up opportunities when the defense collapsed. He provided a quick injection of spacing without forcing the issue or disrupting the offensive flow. A disciplined approach to his limited role ensured he remained a net positive during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 8.7m -5.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0