GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Donovan Clingan 36.1m
20
pts
19
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.9

Utterly dominated the painted area by swallowing up drives and generating massive second-chance opportunities. His towering presence forced opponents to completely abandon their interior attack, reflected in a monstrous defensive rating. He capitalized on deep post seals to triple his usual scoring output in a career-defining performance.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +13.3
Raw total +42.3
Avg player in 36.1m -21.4
Impact +20.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 35
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 45.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 33.8m
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Compensated for a brutal shooting slump by transforming into an absolute menace on the offensive glass and in the passing lanes. His elite hustle metrics reflect a series of crucial 50/50 ball recoveries that extended possessions during a tight fourth quarter. He essentially willed himself to a positive impact through sheer physical exertion rather than skill.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +10.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 33.8m -20.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jerami Grant 32.9m
29
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Carried the offensive load with a barrage of contested perimeter shot-making that bailed out several stagnant possessions. However, his overall impact was heavily muted by defensive apathy and a failure to secure contested rebounds. The scoring volume was spectacular, but he gave too much of it back by dying on screens at the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 32.9m -19.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sidy Cissoko 32.8m
7
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.1

A massive spike in offensive usage resulted in highly inefficient perimeter chucking that derailed offensive momentum. Although he cleaned the glass well and provided solid weak-side rim deterrence, his poor shot selection fueled long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. The defensive hustle simply couldn't outpace the damage done by his bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 32.8m -19.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 27.4m
21
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

Efficient scoring from the mid-range masked a surprisingly porous defensive showing at the point of attack. He uncharacteristically struggled to contain dribble penetration, forcing the frontcourt into foul-prone rotations. A lack of his usual disruptive hustle plays allowed the opposing backcourt to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 27.4m -16.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Love 27.2m
17
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.0

Hijacked the offense with a high-volume, low-efficiency shot diet that repeatedly killed ball movement. While he racked up raw playmaking numbers, his erratic decision-making and forced deep threes led to empty possessions. The sudden explosion in usage came at the direct expense of the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 27.2m -16.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Operated as a flawless connective piece, making quick decisions and hitting timely spot-up looks to keep the offense humming. His length on the perimeter disrupted passing lanes, contributing to a sturdy defensive rating. He thrived by simply taking what the defense gave him and executing crisp rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 26.1m -15.4
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Rayan Rupert 11.4m
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Was completely invisible during his stint, failing to attempt a single shot while getting lost on defensive assignments. Opposing wings easily blew past his closeouts, forcing the defense into scramble mode. The lack of aggression and physical engagement made him a severe liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 11.4m -6.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided a quick scoring punch in limited action but failed to register a single hustle play or defensive disruption. His inability to stay in front of his man during a brief second-quarter stint bled points and negated his offensive efficiency. He needs to show more resistance on the perimeter to earn extended rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 40.9%
Net Rtg -55.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 8.7m -5.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Struggled to adapt to the speed of the game during a brief cameo, looking hesitant on both ends of the floor. A couple of missed rotations in the pick-and-roll quickly earned him a spot back on the bench. He failed to replicate the offensive touch he showed in recent outings.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.4m -2.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Saw only a fleeting garbage-time possession before the final buzzer sounded. There was not enough floor time to make any measurable impact on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 0.3m -0.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.2

Bleeding value through poor shot selection and clanked perimeter looks, his offensive inefficiency severely handicapped the starting lineup. The defensive metrics barely stayed positive, but missed rotations on the weak side allowed open corner threes that cratered his overall impact. He failed to contain dribble penetration during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 30.9m -18.4
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jahmai Mashack 30.2m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Despite struggling to find his rhythm offensively, his relentless point-of-attack defense completely disrupted the opponent's perimeter flow. Elite closeouts and loose ball recoveries drove a massive positive defensive rating. His physical screen navigation kept the team afloat during a cold shooting stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +7.5
Defense +14.8
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 30.2m -18.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 2
S GG Jackson 30.1m
11
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

A sharp drop in scoring volume from his recent tear limited his overall ceiling tonight. While he provided solid weak-side rim protection to boost his defensive metrics, offensive stagnation and forced jumpers in the half-court dragged his net impact into the red. He struggled to create separation against bigger wing defenders.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.7
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 30.1m -17.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kyle Anderson 26.7m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Broke out of a brutal scoring slump by methodically dissecting defensive rotations from the high post. His exceptional spatial awareness translated into high-value hustle plays and timely deflections, fueling a balanced two-way masterclass. The veteran's deliberate pacing stabilized the second unit during crucial transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +8.1
Defense +8.4
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 26.7m -15.9
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 19.9m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Cooled off significantly from his recent hot streak, forcing contested floaters early in the shot clock. While he generated some extra possessions through active hands in the passing lanes, his inability to orchestrate clean half-court sets led to empty trips. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll switches to exploit his lateral quickness.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 19.9m -11.7
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
8
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.3

Playmaking and defensive intensity salvaged a night where his perimeter jumper completely abandoned him. He anchored the perimeter defense by fighting over screens and contesting late-clock heaves, neutralizing his offensive dry spell. His drive-and-kick reads created high-quality looks for spot-up shooters even when his own attempts rimmed out.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 27.8m -16.5
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Javon Small 27.6m
22
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.8

Sliced through the defense with surgical precision, capitalizing on transition opportunities to nearly double his usual scoring output. His ability to finish through contact at the rim forced the defense into early rotations. Smart positional defense and timely digs at the nail rounded out a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 27.6m -16.3
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
25
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.0

An absolute flamethrower from beyond the arc, punishing drop coverage with lethal precision to sustain his scorching efficiency streak. His floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for the entire roster, driving a massive box score impact. He compounded the offensive damage by executing flawless closeouts on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 7/8 (87.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 25.1m -15.0
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.2

Completely vanished from the flow of the game, offering zero resistance on the interior and failing to secure contested rebounds. His passive offensive approach allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the paint. Giving up deep post position repeatedly led to easy layups that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.9
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 21.6m -12.9
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1