GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 28.2m
23
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.6

Put together an absolute masterclass in two-way impact, highlighted by relentless ball pressure that completely disrupted the opponent's offensive sets. He compounded that defensive dominance by confidently stepping into rhythm threes as the trail man in transition.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +52.9
+/- +35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +11.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +37.0
Avg player in 28.2m -11.4
Impact +25.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deni Avdija 27.6m
20
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.1

Anchored the wing defense by shutting down isolation attempts and seamlessly switching across multiple positions. He capitalized on the resulting stops by pushing the pace and attacking backpedaling defenders in the open floor.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 27.6m -11.1
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Scoot Henderson 24.6m
21
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.8

Carved up the interior defense with explosive downhill drives, constantly collapsing the paint to create high-value kickouts. Although he struggled to navigate screens on the defensive end, his offensive engine was far too potent for the opponent to contain.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 70.2%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +48.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 24.6m -10.0
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jrue Holiday 21.8m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Dictated the flow of the game with veteran poise, navigating high pick-and-rolls to find open shooters when the defense collapsed. His timely perimeter shooting punished defenders who dared to go under screens.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +42.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 21.8m -8.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 20.6m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Altered the geometry of the court defensively, forcing guards to consistently abort their drives when they saw him in drop coverage. He sealed his man effectively in the paint, providing a massive target that simplified the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +62.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 20.6m -8.3
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 0
Kris Murray 31.0m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Bleeding points on the defensive end ruined an otherwise solid scoring output. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation and failed to close out under control, allowing easy blow-bys that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.9
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 31.0m -12.5
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Wreaked his usual havoc in the passing lanes, generating live-ball turnovers that ignited the fast break. Crucially, he made the defense pay for ignoring him by knocking down spot-up jumpers from the corner.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +57.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 19.0m -7.7
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 18.3m
1
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Offered very little resistance at the point of attack, frequently getting caught on screens and putting the back-line defense in jeopardy. His complete lack of offensive aggression allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 18.3m -7.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Served as an elite deterrent at the rim, erasing multiple layup attempts with brilliant weak-side rotations. He maximized his limited touches by strictly hunting lobs and put-backs, ensuring maximum efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 14.9m -6.0
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jayson Kent 12.5m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Provided a steadying presence in limited action by executing defensive rotations flawlessly. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead capitalizing on broken plays and smart baseline cuts.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 12.5m -5.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Blake Wesley 10.8m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Stalled the offensive momentum by pounding the air out of the ball and settling for contested floaters. While his on-ball defensive pressure was adequate, his inability to orchestrate clean half-court sets resulted in a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 10.8m -4.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Hansen Yang 10.8m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, struggling to establish deep post position and rushing his hooks in traffic. His heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage made him an easy target for opposing ball-handlers to exploit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 10.8m -4.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
WAS Washington Wizards
S Julian Reese 38.8m
8
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.8

Impact plummeted due to forcing contested looks in the paint against set rim protectors. He squandered possessions by rushing his touch around the basket, completely negating his otherwise commendable effort on the defensive interior.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 38.8m -15.6
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bilal Coulibaly 24.1m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Repeatedly settled for off-balance jumpers late in the clock, resulting in empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. While his point-of-attack defense remained sharp, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/14 (14.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -7.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 24.1m -9.7
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bub Carrington 22.4m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

Bogged down the offense with erratic shot selection, frequently pulling up for contested mid-range jumpers early in possessions. He brought solid energy in transition defense, but the poor offensive decision-making severely dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -46.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 22.4m -9.0
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Leaky Black 22.3m
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Provided steady two-way value by keeping the ball moving and crashing the glass aggressively. His positive impact stemmed from high-energy closeouts and refusing to force bad looks within the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.3m -9.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Stretched the floor effectively as a trailing big, punishing the defense with timely perimeter shooting. The threat of his outside stroke opened up driving lanes for the guards, cementing a highly positive offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 16.1m -6.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Anthony Gill 30.6m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Costly defensive fouls and poor closeout angles erased the value of his highly efficient interior finishing. He operated well out of the dunker spot, but getting repeatedly exposed in pick-and-roll drop coverage tanked his net score.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 30.6m -12.4
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 25.6m
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Leveraged his size to disrupt passing lanes, turning defensive deflections into easy transition opportunities. His willingness to attack closeouts decisively kept the defense rotating and stabilized the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.6m -10.3
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Generated crucial extra possessions by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass against smaller matchups. He stayed strictly within his role, converting high-percentage looks around the rim without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 24.2m -9.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Struggled to contain dribble penetration, constantly giving up straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. His lack of secondary effort on loose balls compounded the defensive bleeding, negating a decent offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 19.0m -7.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Kept his head above water through sheer physical exertion, diving for loose balls and fighting through screens. While his offensive creation was limited, his commitment to doing the dirty work prevented any major drop-off during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 16.8m -6.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1