GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 35.9m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

Chucking from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive value, as a barrage of missed threes fueled opponent transition opportunities. He fought hard on the defensive end (+3.9) and generated decent hustle metrics, but his poor shot selection was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 35.9m -17.1
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jerami Grant 35.4m
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Surgical precision from the field generated a massive box score impact, as he consistently punished mismatches. Timely hustle plays (+4.2) and engaged on-ball defense ensured his scoring efficiency translated directly into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 35.4m -16.8
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 34.4m
22
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.7

Aggressive downhill drives defined his offensive impact, constantly putting pressure on the rim. His willingness to do the dirty work (+3.5 hustle) and steady defensive positioning kept his overall net score firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 34.4m -16.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jrue Holiday 31.9m
4
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.1

An uncharacteristically passive offensive showing and poor shot quality drastically reduced his overall effectiveness. While he still provided his trademark hustle (+4.3) and steady point-of-attack defense, the lack of scoring punch left a glaring hole in the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 31.9m -15.0
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 26.4m
11
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Imposing interior defense (+7.9) and relentless activity on the glass anchored his highly positive performance. Even though he struggled to finish through contact offensively, his ability to control the paint dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.9
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 26.4m -12.6
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 34.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
6
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Elite rim deterrence (+6.9 defense) was the defining feature of his stint, forcing opponents to alter their shot profiles. He maintained his streak of efficient finishing when targeted, serving as a reliable two-way anchor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 21.3m -10.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Hot perimeter shooting provided a massive offensive lift in a condensed role, punishing defenders who went under screens. However, defensive lapses (-0.6) and a failure to contain dribble penetration ultimately washed out his scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 19.4m -9.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Kris Murray 12.6m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

Empty offensive possessions and a failure to convert open looks quickly tanked his value during his brief stint. He offered minor defensive resistance (+0.9), but his inability to impact the game offensively made him a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 12.6m -6.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

A quiet shift where he failed to make a significant imprint on either end of the floor, largely floating on the perimeter. Despite hitting his only look from deep, passive play and minimal defensive resistance led to a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 11.6m -5.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Disruptive off-ball defense (+2.6) was his primary contribution during a brief rotation stint. An inability to generate any offensive gravity allowed defenders to sag off, resulting in a slightly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 11.2m -5.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 36.8m
23
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.4

Stifling perimeter defense (+11.0) was the cornerstone of his highly impactful performance. While his shot selection was occasionally forced, his two-way energy and crucial hustle plays more than compensated for the clanked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +11.0
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 36.8m -17.3
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kon Knueppel 35.6m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Impact was buoyed by confident perimeter shot selection that stretched the opposing defense. Active hands in the passing lanes (+5.2 defensive rating) and a willingness to fight for loose balls (+6.2 hustle) proved his value extends far beyond spot-up duties.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 35.6m -16.7
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 33.4m
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

A brutal diet of forced jumpers and missed finishes at the rim completely tanked his offensive value. He managed to salvage some utility through relentless energy plays (+6.1 hustle) and engaged defensive rotations, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions dictated his negative score.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 33.4m -15.7
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 30.8m
7
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.8

Elite interior anchoring (+9.2 defense) defined his time on the floor, effectively neutralizing opponents in the paint. Even with his streak of highly efficient shooting coming to an end, his ability to generate extra possessions through hustle (+3.5) resulted in a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.2
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 30.8m -14.6
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 22.2m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.2

A lethargic defensive effort (-1.3) and a complete absence of hustle plays defined a highly damaging performance. Inefficient volume scoring further dragged down his net impact, as he gave back too much on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 22.2m -10.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Sion James 24.5m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Excellent shot selection and timely perimeter makes provided a surprising offensive spark. His disciplined defensive rotations (+3.5) ensured that his scoring burst translated into a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 97.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 24.5m -11.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Josh Green 20.9m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Tremendous energy plays (+6.7 hustle) kept him relevant despite being largely invisible as a scoring threat. However, his hesitance to attack closeouts and overall lack of offensive gravity ultimately resulted in a slightly negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 20.9m -9.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.8

Flawless finishing around the basket drove a massive offensive spike, perfectly complementing his elite rim protection (+9.9 defense). Dominating his matchup in the paint allowed him to post a team-high impact score in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +9.9
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 17.1m -8.0
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Poor shot quality and an inability to convert open looks cratered his offensive impact. He provided sturdy post defense (+5.5) to stop the bleeding, but a complete lack of hustle stats left his overall contribution firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -5.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 13.6m -6.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Maximized a brief stint on the floor by executing defensive assignments perfectly (+3.8). Hitting his only perimeter look provided just enough spacing to yield a highly efficient net positive in under six minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 5.3m -2.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0