GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 39.4m
23
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.6

Delivered an absolute masterclass in two-way impact, fueled by monumental hustle metrics and elite perimeter shot-making. Completely broke the game open during a crucial stretch by burying momentum-shifting triples and suffocating ball-handlers at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +15.7
Defense +9.3
Raw total +43.1
Avg player in 39.4m -22.5
Impact +20.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 37.4m
27
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.6

Heavy shot volume and missed attempts inside the arc slightly offset a blistering perimeter shooting display. A pattern of inefficiency on two-point looks kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral, despite orchestrating the offense and providing sturdy perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.4%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 37.4m -21.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Deni Avdija 37.2m
26
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.1

A massive volume of missed shots and forced attempts at the rim actively sabotaged his overall efficiency. A recurring pattern of empty offensive possessions and forced drives dragged him into the red, completely overshadowing his strong defensive instincts.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 37.2m -21.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 22.2m
4
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Anchored the paint with imposing size, deterring drives and altering shots to generate a solid defensive rating. A pattern of fundamentally sound rebounding and sheer physical presence kept his net impact in the green despite minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 22.2m -12.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scoot Henderson 20.5m
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Controlled the tempo effectively during his shifts, using quick bursts of acceleration to collapse the defense. A stretch of smart shot selection and decisive rim attacks yielded a steady, positive offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 20.5m -11.5
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Wreaked his usual havoc in the passing lanes, generating key deflections that fueled transition opportunities. A pattern of timely perimeter conversions perfectly complemented his disruptive off-ball defense to secure a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 30.9m -17.5
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.4

Dominated the interior with explosive vertical spacing and elite rim protection. A dominant stretch of cleaning up the glass and erasing defensive mistakes at the basket drove a highly efficient and impactful shift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 23.1m -13.1
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Kris Murray 20.1m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Extreme offensive passivity severely limited his overall value, as he routinely passed up open looks. A pattern of failing to threaten the defense on the other end resulted in a noticeable negative swing, even though his defensive rotations were crisp.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 20.1m -11.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief stint, forcing a couple of contested looks that stalled offensive flow. A pattern of erratic decision-making with the ball ultimately dragged his score down despite decent defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -44.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 9.3m -5.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 36.4m
19
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Perimeter inefficiency heavily weighed down his overall value, as a barrage of missed triples stunted scoring runs. While his defensive rotations provided a solid boost, the sheer volume of empty outside possessions established a negative pattern that kept his net rating submerged.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 36.4m -20.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Saddiq Bey 34.7m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Clunky shot selection from the perimeter and missed opportunities inside the arc dragged his overall impact into the red. A pattern of stalling offensive momentum with forced contested looks proved too costly to overcome, despite generating positive hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.7
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 34.7m -19.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 29.4m
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

A stark lack of offensive aggression severely limited his typical rim-pressure impact. Passing up driving lanes and failing to physically dominate his matchups in the paint created a pattern of passivity that left his overall footprint surprisingly negative.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 29.4m -16.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dejounte Murray 28.0m
9
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.5

Struggled to orchestrate the offense effectively, with clunky shot creation and offensive stagnation driving his negative score. A pattern of poor offensive rhythm and forced isolation plays completely negated his elite defensive metrics and disruptive perimeter coverage.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -41.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 28.0m -15.8
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Herbert Jones 25.9m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.1

Impact cratered largely due to uncharacteristic defensive struggles and poor shot selection that derailed half-court possessions. Failing to provide his usual perimeter lockdown presence against quicker guards allowed opponents to capitalize while he forced contested looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 25.9m -14.7
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Derik Queen 27.7m
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.9

Playmaking from the post and relentless activity on the glass defined a highly productive shift. Generated massive defensive and hustle value by repeatedly blowing up pick-and-roll actions in the paint and keeping critical possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 27.7m -15.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
21
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Pushed the pace relentlessly, turning defensive stops into high-value transition opportunities. A stretch of decisive perimeter shooting and aggressive point-of-attack defense created a commanding positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.1%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 26.0m -14.8
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
Yves Missi 19.7m
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Thrived as an interior anchor, utilizing high-energy rim runs and disciplined verticality to fortify the defense. A dominant stretch of altering shots at the rim and finishing through contact generated a highly positive two-way footprint in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 19.7m -11.2
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Micah Peavy 12.2m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

A completely invisible offensive shift resulted in a negative net rating. Floated through possessions without generating any meaningful rim pressure, establishing a pattern of passivity that failed to assert any defensive disruption during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg +49.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 12.2m -7.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0