GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 29.6m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Generated massive value through relentless energy plays, leading the team in hustle metrics by diving for loose balls and keeping possessions alive. His timely weak-side cuts perfectly complemented the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +9.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 29.6m -18.4
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 28.0m
23
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

Carried the half-court offense by isolating effectively at the elbows and drawing fouls on over-aggressive defenders. The scoring volume was highly efficient, though a lack of secondary playmaking kept his ceiling slightly capped.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 28.0m -17.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 25.4m
13
pts
17
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.5

Absolutely dominated the painted area, swallowing up defensive rebounds to terminate opponent possessions. His massive frame deterred countless drives at the rim, anchoring a dominant defensive stretch that swung the game.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.7
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 25.4m -15.7
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 24.9m
20
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.1

Masterfully dictated the game's tempo by threading the needle on pick-and-roll feeds and hounding ball-handlers full court. His elite two-way processing turned defensive stops into immediate high-value scoring chances.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 24.9m -15.5
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 13.9m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Looked completely disengaged during his brief stint on the floor, failing to pressure the rim or create separation. The offense stagnated heavily with him operating as a secondary creator.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 13.9m -8.7
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 24.9m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalized on rare rotation minutes by aggressively filling the lanes in transition. His physical point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's timing, allowing him to carve out a slight positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 24.9m -15.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided steady, low-mistake connective tissue for the second unit. He made the right extra pass against rotating defenses, though his overall impact remained neutral due to a lack of aggressive rim pressure.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 23.1m -14.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-8.4

Wild shot selection from the perimeter severely undermined his playmaking efforts. Opponents sagged off him to clog the passing lanes, exposing his inability to consistently punish drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 21.3m -13.1
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Capitalized on every touch around the basket with flawless finishing as a lob threat. His vertical spacing warped the opposing defense, while his weak-side shot blocking erased multiple defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +46.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 19.1m -11.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
Blake Wesley 14.7m
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Frenetic pacing led to rushed decisions and blown spacing in the half-court. Despite active hands in the passing lanes, his inability to organize the offense resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 14.7m -9.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 11.6m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Punished the defense for leaving him in the corners, providing a sudden and lethal burst of floor spacing. His red-hot catch-and-shoot execution forced the opposition to abandon their zone scheme.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 11.6m -7.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game during a brief cameo. Late rotations and poor positioning in the pick-and-roll allowed a quick flurry of uncontested layups.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 57.1%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

A brutal regression to the mean snapped his hot shooting streak, as he forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The high volume of empty possessions severely dragged down his net rating despite active rebounding on the margins.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 27.8m -17.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 27.4m
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.2

Impact cratered due to poor perimeter shot selection. Brick after brick from deep stalled the half-court offense, negating a solid defensive effort on the wing.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 27.4m -16.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S GG Jackson 27.1m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Maintained his steady scoring rhythm by attacking closeouts and finishing through contact. His positive impact was driven by efficient shot creation, though occasional defensive lapses kept his total score from entering elite territory.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 27.1m -16.7
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 25.0m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Anchored the second unit with exceptional defensive rotations and high-motor closeouts. His elite hustle metrics completely offset a low-usage offensive role, proving his value lies entirely in doing the dirty work.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +8.6
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 25.0m -15.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.0

Kept the offense humming with sharp dribble penetration and crisp kick-outs to shooters. However, his overall impact was muted by getting targeted on defensive switches against bigger guards.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 22.0m -13.6
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Spencer 26.0m
18
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.4

Exploded out of a recent slump by finding soft spots in the zone and punishing late rotations. His near-perfect shooting efficiency combined with disruptive perimeter defense to generate a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.1
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 26.0m -16.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.1

Blew several defensive assignments in transition, allowing uncontested layups that quickly erased his offensive contributions. His inability to secure long rebounds also gave the opponent crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.0m -13.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Javon Small 21.6m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Efficient scoring numbers masked a highly passive defensive performance. He routinely died on screens at the point of attack, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 21.6m -13.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Struggled to find any rhythm offensively, forcing clunky floaters in traffic that led to easy transition run-outs for the opponent. A lack of physical engagement on the glass further tanked his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -65.1
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 20.9m -12.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Offensive hesitancy plagued his minutes, as he passed up open looks and bogged down the spacing. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, the complete lack of scoring gravity made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 20.2m -12.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1