GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 38.6m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Elite hustle metrics were completely overshadowed by clunky offensive execution and missed perimeter looks. He generated numerous second-chance opportunities through sheer willpower, but his inability to finish those plays negated the effort. The defense sagged off him in the half-court, severely cramping the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 38.6m -14.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Deni Avdija 37.8m
20
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.4

Strong defensive rotations and effective slashing were surprisingly offset by negative hidden metrics, likely driven by stalled possessions. While he excelled at attacking closeouts, his perimeter hesitation allowed the defense to pack the paint. His inability to stretch the floor from deep ultimately capped the lineup's offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.7
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 37.8m -14.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Jrue Holiday 35.1m
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Relentless ball pressure and timely shot-making kept his impact firmly in the positive despite a high volume of missed jumpers. He dictated the physical tone of the backcourt matchup, consistently blowing up dribble hand-offs. His veteran composure during a chaotic third-quarter stretch stabilized the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 35.1m -13.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 31.6m
6
pts
17
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

A brutal finishing night around the rim tanked his overall rating, despite his imposing rim protection and rebounding effort. He consistently won the battle for deep position but failed to convert high-percentage looks through contact. Those empty interior possessions allowed the opposition to leak out for easy transition points.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 31.6m -11.9
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jerami Grant 29.0m
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.6

Highly efficient shot selection and switchable perimeter defense resulted in a stellar net impact. He capitalized on every mismatch, punishing smaller defenders in the mid-post while spacing the floor perfectly. His ability to anchor the weak-side defense disrupted multiple cross-court passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 29.0m -11.0
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Erratic shot selection and poor finishing at the cup dragged his offensive value down, nullifying a highly disruptive defensive shift. He showed great lateral quickness to stay in front of ball-handlers but bailed them out with wild, contested attempts on the other end. His struggles to navigate drop coverage effectively stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 22.1m -8.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Typical defensive disruption was not enough to overcome his complete lack of offensive gravity. Opponents aggressively helped off him in the half-court, daring him to shoot and effectively double-teaming the primary ball-handlers. His inability to punish those defensive gambles resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 15.6m -5.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 11.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Floating aimlessly on the perimeter without registering a single shot attempt led to a severely negative impact score. He failed to make his presence felt on either end of the floor, consistently arriving late to defensive rotations. The team bled points during his uninspired second-half minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 11.9m -4.5
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Vertical spacing and efficient interior finishing provided a quick spark during his brief rotational window. He capitalized on dump-off passes and altered shots at the rim without fouling. This short but highly effective stint perfectly executed his role as an energy big.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 10.8m -4.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Blown defensive assignments and rushed offensive decisions defined a disastrously brief appearance. He looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, getting caught out of position and forcing bad looks when he did touch the ball. This highly damaging stint forced the coaching staff to pull him quickly.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.9
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 7.6m -3.0
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 37.5m
24
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.7

Elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle plays fueled a massive positive overall impact. His ability to dominate interior matchups while maintaining high-end efficiency completely tilted the floor. Continuing his recent tear of dominant two-way basketball, he dictated the game's tempo through sheer physical presence.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +10.8
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 37.5m -14.2
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Naji Marshall 32.9m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.3

Smothering point-of-attack defense and timely off-ball cuts drove a highly productive two-way performance. By turning defensive stops into early transition opportunities, he generated massive value without needing plays called for him. His relentless ball pressure completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +11.4
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 32.9m -12.4
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 27.3m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A stark drop in offensive aggression cratered his overall value, as he floated on the perimeter instead of attacking his matchups. While his defensive rotations remained solid, the lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to ignore him. This passive stretch of play severely limited the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 27.3m -10.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Max Christie 25.3m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Brick after brick from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive rating, negating what was actually a stellar defensive shift. He consistently stayed in front of his man and fought over screens, but the empty offensive possessions were too costly. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately derailed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 25.3m -9.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dwight Powell 20.8m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

Operating strictly as a screen-setter and positional defender, his low-usage role resulted in a slight negative overall rating. He provided solid rim deterrence and won several 50/50 balls to keep possessions alive. However, his complete lack of offensive threat allowed opposing bigs to camp in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 20.8m -7.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
26
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+24.1

Unprecedented shooting efficiency from all three levels skyrocketed his impact score to a team-high mark. He exploited mismatches in the post and stretched the floor effectively, forcing the defense into impossible rotation choices. This unexpected offensive explosion completely broke the opponent's game plan.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.5
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 27.2m -10.2
Impact +24.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Defensive lapses at the point of attack and forced shots in traffic dragged his net rating into the red. Although he managed to generate some offense through drive-and-kick sequences, he gave it right back by dying on screens defensively. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 20.0m -7.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

Cold shooting from beyond the arc suppressed his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock. Despite the offensive struggles, his veteran positioning on defense prevented his overall impact from cratering entirely. Opponents still respected his gravity, but the missed open catch-and-shoot opportunities were glaring.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 18.1m -6.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Extreme passivity with the ball in his hands led to stagnant offensive possessions and a poor impact score. Rather than attacking gaps, he settled for lateral passes that allowed the defense to reset. His inability to collapse the paint made him a liability during his second-quarter stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 12.0m -4.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
AJ Johnson 10.0m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Rushed decision-making and forced jumpers doomed his brief rotational appearance. He struggled to adapt to the game's physicality, getting easily bumped off his spots on both ends of the floor. This brief, unproductive stretch forced an early substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 10.0m -3.7
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A completely invisible stint on the floor yielded a negative impact due to sheer lack of production. He failed to register a single shot attempt or meaningful hustle play, essentially playing empty minutes. The offense bogged down into 4-on-5 situations whenever he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 8.9m -3.3
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1