GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 37.5m
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.2

Impact cratered due to an abysmal perimeter shooting display that stalled out half-court sets. While he generated extra possessions through relentless hustle, his inability to convert those opportunities into points proved deeply costly.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 37.5m -23.3
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 56.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 35.5m
11
pts
16
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.0

Anchored the paint with elite rim protection, altering drives to post a massive defensive rating. Showed surprising touch from the perimeter, stretching the floor to cap off a breakout two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 11.2%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +14.5
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 35.5m -21.9
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jerami Grant 35.0m
21
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

A dreadful shooting display completely neutralized his overall value, as he forced heavily contested mid-range looks. Defensive activity was solid, yet the sheer volume of clanked jumpers stalled the team's offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 35.0m -21.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jrue Holiday 33.5m
22
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

Bled value through likely live-ball turnovers and transition defensive breakdowns, resulting in a negative net score. The highly efficient scoring masked an inability to control the tempo against his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 33.5m -20.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kris Murray 28.7m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Shattered his recent scoring averages by capitalizing on open looks with stellar efficiency. Active off-ball cutting and disciplined defensive closeouts made him a highly effective glue guy all night.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 28.7m -17.8
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Overshadowed his playmaking flashes with errant shot selection and a distinct lack of defensive resistance. The high volume of missed perimeter looks allowed the defense to sag and completely clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 29.0m -17.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Sidy Cissoko 15.8m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Dragged his net score into the negative through defensive miscommunications that likely led to easy baskets. Struggled to integrate into the offensive flow, with his limited touches failing to generate any real momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 15.8m -9.8
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Maintained a positive impact by making quick decisions and avoiding costly mistakes during his rotation minutes. Provided steady floor spacing and opportunistic scoring to keep the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 15.2m -9.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Kept his impact in the green by punishing defensive sagging and knocking down perimeter shots at a high clip. Surprisingly, his usually elite point-of-attack defense graded out poorly, capping his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 9.8m -6.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 38.3m
34
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.4

Impact was dragged into the red by a massive volume of missed shots, reflecting a pattern of forcing contested jumpers. The sheer number of empty possessions negated his scoring output and otherwise solid defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 11/27 (40.7%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 38.3m -23.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaden McDaniels 37.1m
29
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.1

A masterclass in two-way efficiency, driven by flawless perimeter shot selection and suffocating point-of-attack defense. He completely dictated the terms of his matchup, turning defensive stops into highly efficient transition scores.

Shooting
FG 12/16 (75.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +5.8
Defense +14.5
Raw total +44.0
Avg player in 37.1m -22.9
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 5
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 35.7m
10
pts
19
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Anchored the paint with disciplined drop coverage that suffocated the opponent's interior attack. High-efficiency finishing on rolls to the rim maximized his limited touches, driving a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.8
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 35.7m -22.0
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
19
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.7

Excellent perimeter spacing provided crucial breathing room for the offense. Active hands in passing lanes and relentless off-ball movement kept the offense flowing, though minor defensive rotation errors slightly capped his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.1
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 32.5m -20.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 30.5m
13
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.7

Impact plummeted into the negative due to a stark drop in offensive aggression and likely live-ball turnovers. Defensive lapses and empty half-court possessions completely undermined his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 30.5m -18.9
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 23.9m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

A steep drop-off in scoring aggression and zero hustle contributions created a massive negative footprint. Looked completely disengaged off the ball, allowing his matchup to dictate the pace of the game.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 23.9m -14.9
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 23.0m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Offensive execution suffered as he forced contested looks to compensate for a quiet scoring night. While hustle metrics show he battled in the trenches, likely ill-timed fouls and empty possessions sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 23.0m -14.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Bones Hyland 12.9m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Generated a minor positive impact through active defensive rotations and timely hustle plays. Kept his footprint in the green by moving the ball quickly rather than forcing his broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 12.9m -8.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Capitalized on a brief cameo by taking only high-value shots and maintaining solid defensive positioning. Stayed perfectly within the flow of the offense to register a minor positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 6.0m -3.8
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0