GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 28.2m
35
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+31.3

An absolutely nuclear perimeter shooting display shattered the opponent's defensive scheme and skyrocketed his impact metrics. He relentlessly punished late closeouts and defensive miscommunications, turning every catch into a high-value scoring opportunity. His off-ball gravity completely warped the floor, defining one of the most dominant offensive performances of the season.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 9/11 (81.8%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 116.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +31.4
Hustle +8.3
Defense +4.7
Raw total +44.4
Avg player in 28.2m -13.1
Impact +31.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sidy Cissoko 27.9m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.2

Disastrous overall impact was driven by a complete breakdown in defensive communication and poor transition awareness. He consistently lost his man off the ball, surrendering backbreaking backdoor cuts that fueled the opponent's momentum. The inability to anchor the weak side defense turned his minutes into a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +46.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 27.9m -13.0
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 27.2m
11
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.1

Despite his trademark physical defense, a stagnant offensive approach and poor perimeter execution dragged his overall impact into the red. He repeatedly settled for contested pull-ups rather than pressuring the rim, bailing out the defense. The inability to generate high-quality looks as a primary initiator severely bogged down the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 27.2m -12.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Donovan Clingan 24.1m
7
pts
15
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.1

Elite rim deterrence and dominant glass-cleaning fueled a massive defensive rating, completely offsetting his struggles to finish inside. He served as a one-man wall in the paint, altering countless trajectories and ending possessions with authoritative box-outs. His physical imposition in the drop coverage scheme dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +12.8
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 24.1m -11.2
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 7
TO 2
S Deni Avdija 20.9m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Aggressive downhill drives and an ability to draw contact salvaged his impact metrics despite a broken outside shot. He consistently forced the issue in transition, putting foul pressure on the interior defense. Relying on sheer physicality to get to the line masked his struggles to connect from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 20.9m -9.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Kris Murray 30.5m
16
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.7

Timely weak-side cuts and decisive spot-up shooting punished a defense that repeatedly lost track of him. He capitalized on the gravity of his teammates by relocating perfectly along the perimeter, ensuring high-efficiency finishes. This opportunistic offensive execution drove a highly positive net impact during his crucial second-half stint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +54.3
+/- +38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 30.5m -14.2
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.9

Exceptional point-of-attack pressure and active hands in the passing lanes generated a massive defensive impact score. He hounded opposing ball-handlers the length of the floor, disrupting their offensive rhythm and sparking fast breaks. A newfound patience in navigating pick-and-rolls allowed him to capitalize on the chaos he created defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +47.7
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +10.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 23.8m -11.0
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
Blake Wesley 20.2m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.2

A lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to easily break the paint, sinking his overall impact. While he managed the game decently on offense, his inability to navigate screens effectively surrendered a parade of open looks. The defensive bleeding completely overshadowed his tidy offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 20.2m -9.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Elite event creation on the defensive end kept his impact near neutral, as he routinely blew up dribble hand-offs and jumped passing lanes. However, his overall rating was capped by a severe lack of offensive gravity that allowed his defender to roam freely. Playing essentially as a free safety on defense was nearly negated by being a non-factor on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 19.1m -8.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Solid positional awareness and disciplined verticality around the basket drove a positive impact in limited action. He set bruising screens that freed up the guards and rolled with purpose to collapse the defense. A fundamentally sound stint was defined by his refusal to bite on pump fakes or commit unnecessary fouls.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 9.0m -4.2
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Instant offense from the perimeter provided a quick jolt to the team's net rating during his brief appearance. He confidently stepped into his outside looks, punishing the defense for going under screens. This decisive shot-making injected life into a stagnant second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 9.0m -4.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Josh Minott 32.7m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless energy on the margins drove his strong hustle metrics, though his overall impact was slightly muted by defensive lapses in transition. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities by crashing the glass with intent. His relentless motor defined his stint, even if the overall net rating didn't fully capture his physical presence.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 32.7m -15.3
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Wilson 31.4m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite solid positional defense and decent hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to stalled offensive possessions. Brick-laying from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. A failure to stretch the floor ultimately undermined his otherwise serviceable defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 31.4m -14.6
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ziaire Williams 24.0m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

A balanced two-way performance fueled his highly positive net impact. Active hands and off-ball movement created high-percentage looks, while his defensive rotations consistently disrupted opponent sets. His ability to blend seamless offensive execution with high-level hustle plays defined his night.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 24.0m -11.1
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 21.5m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Rim protection and vertical spacing anchored his positive overall impact. He deterred multiple drives into the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Operating as an elite lob threat effectively collapsed the defense, creating a gravitational pull that opened up the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 21.5m -9.9
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 16.4m
0
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.8

An abysmal shooting night completely cratered his offensive impact, dragging his net rating into the depths. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock repeatedly killed offensive momentum and handed the opposition easy transition opportunities. While he tried to compensate with active perimeter defense, the sheer volume of empty possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 0/9 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -34.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -8.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 16.4m -7.6
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Although he found success finishing around the basket, his overall impact suffered from poor spatial awareness on the defensive end. Late closeouts and missed rotations allowed opponents to capitalize on open perimeter looks. The scoring efficiency masked underlying structural issues in his pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 26.5m -12.3
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

Strong point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to rescue a heavily negative net impact driven by offensive passivity. He frequently passed up open driving lanes, causing the offensive engine to stall out late in the shot clock. A reluctance to assert himself offensively allowed the defense to completely ignore him and overload the strong side.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 24.3m -11.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
18
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.2

Scorching perimeter execution drove a massive box score impact, punishing defenders for going under screens. His decisive trigger from deep stretched the defense to its breaking point and opened up the interior for his teammates. While his defensive resistance was minimal, the sheer gravity of his floor-spacing dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 24.0m -11.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ben Saraf 18.8m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Inefficient shot selection hampered his ability to positively influence the game, resulting in a slightly negative overall rating. He settled for heavily contested mid-range jumpers instead of probing the defense for better angles. A few timely defensive rotations salvaged his metrics from dropping further, but the offensive execution remained disjointed.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 18.8m -8.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
E.J. Liddell 14.2m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

A heavy reliance on outside jumpers that failed to connect severely damaged his offensive rating. Defenders quickly realized they could leave him open on the perimeter, completely bogging down the team's half-court spacing. His inability to punish drop coverage with his jumper defined a highly detrimental offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -56.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 14.2m -6.5
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

A completely invisible offensive stint resulted in a negative impact during his brief time on the floor. He failed to make decisive cuts or establish any rhythm, effectively forcing his team to play four-on-five on that end. The lack of offensive aggression severely limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -98.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 6.2m -3.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1