Portland Trail Blazers

Western Conference

Portland
Blazers

HC Tiago Splitter

44-44
L3

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Donovan Clingan
Center Yr 1 83G (83S)
+11.5
11.7 pts
11.3 reb
2.1 ast
26.9 min

This late-season stretch was a tale of two extremes for Donovan Clingan, opening with an absolute reign of terror in the paint before settling into a stark offensive regression. At his peak, he was an unstoppable interior force. During the Mar 20 vs MIN matchup, Clingan bullied his way to 21 points and 12 rebounds, generating a massive +32.9 impact score fueled by absolute dominance in the painted area. Even when his shooting touch vanished, his sheer size often warped the floor in his team's favor. Look at Mar 23 vs BKN, where he managed just 7 points on 3-for-10 shooting but still posted a +14.3 impact because his elite rim deterrence and dominant glass-cleaning completely suffocated the opposition. However, the back half of this stretch exposed how quickly his value plummets when the offense completely dries up. During an ugly Mar 28 vs DAL contest, a brutal finishing night around the rim tanked his rating to a -7.6 impact despite grabbing 17 rebounds, revealing the hidden costs of a clunky offensive game.

Deni Avdija
Forward Yr 5 72G (72S)
+10.6
24.3 pts
6.8 reb
6.6 ast
33.5 min

Deni Avdija’s late-season stretch morphed from a frustrating, inefficient grind into a full-blown offensive eruption. Look at his early 02/20 vs DEN performance, where a double-double of 15 points and 13 assists looked great on paper, but a disastrous -10.4 Impact score revealed the hidden costs of defensive lapses and sloppy turnovers. Eventually, he learned to manufacture value even when his jumper abandoned him. During the 03/08 vs IND matchup, Avdija tallied a modest 18 points on a rough 6-for-16 from the floor, yet still posted a +13.3 Impact because of his relentless hustle on the glass and suffocating perimeter defense. By April, the game simply slowed down for him. He peaked in the 04/14 vs PHX finale, torching the nets for 41 points and 12 assists on brilliant 15-of-22 shooting. That masterpiece earned a staggering +25.0 Impact, driven by flawless shot selection and pinpoint playmaking that completely dismantled the defense.

Shaedon Sharpe
Guard Yr 3 56G (42S)
+6.1
19.5 pts
4.0 reb
2.4 ast
27.8 min

This stretch of Shaedon Sharpe’s season was a jarring tale of two extremes: an explosive mid-winter offensive peak abruptly derailed by a massive two-month absence and a subsequent demotion to the second unit. When he was rolling, he looked unstoppable, peaking during the 01/28 vs WAS matchup where he poured in 31 points on 11-for-20 shooting to generate a massive +21.1 Impact score. Yet, his volume-heavy approach sometimes actively harmed the team even when his point totals looked respectable. During the 02/01 vs CLE game, Sharpe forced up 21 shots to reach 20 points, logging a -2.2 Impact because his poor shot selection and meager two rebounds created too many empty possessions. Shortly after that inefficient night, his season fractured, leading to a mysterious nine-week layoff. He finally resurfaced on 04/10 vs LAC as a bench player, logging a quiet 15 minutes and a -3.7 Impact score as he bricked seven of his ten field goal attempts. The dynamic starter who commanded the offense in January had completely vanished by April.

Jrue Holiday
Guard Yr 16 59G (57S)
+5.0
16.4 pts
4.7 reb
6.1 ast
30.3 min

Extreme offensive volatility defined this late-season stretch for Jrue Holiday, as he swung wildly between ice-cold shooting nights and explosive two-way dominance. He looked completely out of rhythm during the 03/10 vs CHA matchup, posting a dismal -10.6 impact score because his forced shot selection yielded just 4 points on 2-for-8 shooting. When his perimeter stroke clicked, however, he was utterly unstoppable. During the 03/31 vs LAC game, Holiday erupted for 30 points and buried seven threes, driving a massive +20.2 impact score through sheer scoring gravity. Even when his jumper vanished entirely, the veteran guard found ways to salvage his nightly value. Take his gritty performance on 03/16 vs BKN. Despite managing only 11 points, he generated a robust +8.5 impact score by crashing the glass for 9 rebounds and utilizing his relentless defensive hustle to disrupt the opposing backcourt.

Jerami Grant
Forward Yr 11 63G (38S)
+4.4
17.9 pts
3.3 reb
2.0 ast
29.0 min

Jerami Grant’s mid-season stretch was defined by a maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between dominant two-way force and total passenger. When engaged, he was an absolute wrecking ball. Take the 03/04 vs MEM matchup, where he poured in 30 points and grabbed 9 rebounds, generating a massive +22.5 Impact score by combining sharp shot selection with relentless effort on the glass. Yet, his focus could evaporate without warning. During the 03/13 vs UTA game, he managed just 9 points on five shot attempts, yielding a brutal -12.7 Impact because his extreme passivity starved the offense and left him floating aimlessly. Even when his scoring totals looked respectable, the underlying value often fluctuated. He dropped 20 points on 03/15 vs PHI, but produced a surprisingly mediocre +4.4 Impact because his one-dimensional perimeter gunning came with hidden costs to defensive resistance and ball movement. Relying on him night to night remains a pure gamble.

Robert Williams III
Center-Forward Yr 7 65G (1S)
+3.6
6.9 pts
7.1 reb
1.1 ast
17.4 min

Robert Williams III spent this stretch operating as a volatile but utterly devastating bench enforcer. When fully engaged, he broke games open through sheer athletic force and elite shot selection. Look at the 03/04 vs MEM matchup, where he poured in 20 points and grabbed 11 rebounds on 9-of-12 shooting to generate a massive +20.1 Impact score. Yet he didn't even need to score to wreck opponents. During the 03/15 vs PHI contest, he managed just six points but still posted a +11.0 Impact because his 12 rebounds and relentless interior hustle created essential second-chance opportunities. However, when his motor idled, the hidden costs of a limited offensive game dragged him down. Take his performance on 04/06 vs DEN, where a quiet six-point, six-rebound outing resulted in a brutal -7.0 Impact. Without his usual dominance on the glass, his total lack of shooting gravity severely clogged the half-court offense and became a glaring liability.

Toumani Camara
Forward Yr 2 88G (88S)
+2.8
13.0 pts
5.1 reb
2.4 ast
33.3 min

Toumani Camara's late-season stretch was a wild Jekyll-and-Hyde act, opening with a disastrous perimeter slump before exploding into a blistering hot streak. Early on, his offensive struggles completely cratered his value. He bottomed out on Mar 15 vs PHI, where a brutal 1-for-7 night from deep dragged his impact down to a dismal -12.2 despite solid defensive engagement. Everything flipped a week later. On Mar 23 vs BKN, he unleashed an absolutely nuclear shooting display, draining 9 of 11 threes to rack up 35 points and a massive +33.2 impact score. Yet, offensive fireworks did not always guarantee flawless basketball. On Apr 06 vs DEN, Camara poured in 30 points on eight made triples, but his overall impact was dragged down to a modest +5.6 because hidden defensive lapses (-2.6 defensive score) surrendered much of that value right back. When he stops chucking contested looks and pairs his relentless motor with efficient execution, he transforms into a terrifying two-way weapon.

Scoot Henderson
Guard Yr 2 36G (16S)
+0.1
14.2 pts
2.5 reb
3.3 ast
25.3 min

This ten-game stretch defined Scoot Henderson's chaotic transition from an explosive bench sparkplug into a full-time starter. He essentially forced his way into the opening lineup after a brilliant reserve performance on 03/25 vs MIL, pouring in 23 points on just 13 shots to generate a massive +19.5 impact score. Once promoted to the first unit, however, his shot selection quickly became a glaring liability against stouter defenses. During the 03/31 vs LAC matchup, Henderson forced 14 shots to scrape together 15 points, dragging his impact down to a brutal -7.1 as his erratic chucking stalled the offense. The young guard is learning to compensate for those rough shooting nights, though. On 04/08 vs SAS, he needed a grueling 20 field goal attempts just to reach 20 points, yet he still managed a stellar +11.0 impact by grinding out extra possessions through relentless defensive intensity and pure hustle. He remains a wildly unpredictable offensive engine, but his willingness to affect winning without a reliable jumper is a major leap forward.

Caleb Love
Guard Yr 0 49G (1S)
-2.3
10.4 pts
2.3 reb
2.5 ast
20.7 min

This brutal midseason stretch defined Caleb Love as a textbook irrational confidence guard whose erratic shot selection eventually exiled him from the rotation. Look at his 02/07 vs MEM performance. He stuffed the box score with 17 points and 8 assists, yet still posted a dismal -4.4 Impact score. The hidden cost of those counting stats was his relentless chucking, as he bricked 11 of his 18 shot attempts and completely hijacked the offensive flow. He occasionally found other ways to contribute, like during the 01/30 vs NYK game. Despite inefficient scoring on a miserable 5-for-15 from the floor, he salvaged a +4.0 Impact score by digging in defensively when his jumper abandoned him. Sadly, those gritty moments vanished quickly. By the time he logged just eight scoreless minutes on 02/03 vs PHX, his total lack of execution yielded a catastrophic -18.3 Impact score, permanently relegating him to garbage-time duty.

Matisse Thybulle
Guard-Forward Yr 6 35G
-2.4
5.3 pts
1.9 reb
0.9 ast
15.6 min

A maddening pendulum of extreme highs and invisible lows defined Matisse Thybulle's late-season stretch off the bench. He looked like an elite two-way weapon on 03/25 vs MIL, pouring in 14 points and grabbing 8 rebounds on blistering 5-of-7 shooting to earn a robust +9.8 Impact score. Even when his scoring volume dropped, his relentless defensive disruption could completely tilt a matchup in his team's favor. On 04/10 vs LAC, he managed just 6 points in 18 minutes, yet generated a staggering +10.8 Impact score by suffocating ball-handlers and creating crucial extra possessions through pure hustle. But those peaks were matched by agonizing valleys. During a disastrous outing on 04/08 vs SAS, Thybulle posted a dismal -10.2 Impact score. He put up a complete goose egg that night—zero points, zero rebounds, and zero assists—while bricking all five of his shot attempts, revealing the steep hidden costs of giving heavy rotation minutes to a complete offensive non-factor.

Kris Murray
Forward Yr 2 63G (15S)
-3.2
5.3 pts
3.4 reb
1.3 ast
21.8 min

Kris Murray spent this late-season stretch drifting through games as a complete offensive non-factor, logging empty minutes off the bench. His passive approach hit rock bottom on 04/06 vs DEN. He managed a catastrophic -21.4 Impact score in that contest because he played 22 minutes without attempting a single field goal, adding just 1 point and 1 rebound to a lifeless box score. When he actually decided to engage, the underlying metrics immediately flipped. Take his outing on 04/12 vs SAC, where Murray posted a stellar +12.2 Impact despite scoring just 9 points. He generated that immense positive value by missing only one of his four shots, grabbing 4 rebounds, and keeping the offense flowing with 3 assists. He also flashed his ceiling on 03/23 vs BKN, dropping 16 points and 5 assists on 6-of-9 shooting to earn a +10.6 Impact. Unfortunately, those aggressive bursts were buried under weeks of aimless cardio.

Vít Krejčí
Guard Yr 4 23G
-4.5
6.0 pts
2.3 reb
1.5 ast
16.5 min

Vít Krejčí’s midseason stretch was defined by wild, unpredictable swings in offensive utility, oscillating between vital spark plug and complete offensive liability. When his jumper was falling, he looked like a genuine rotation piece, erupting for 17 points on sharp 7-for-10 shooting during the 02/11 vs MIN matchup to post a +4.5 impact score. But those efficient outbursts were buried beneath a mountain of passive, erratic showings. During the 02/22 vs PHX game, Krejčí laid a total goose egg with zero points on 0-for-5 shooting, resulting in a brutal -12.0 impact score because he offered no secondary skills to salvage his minutes. Even when he tried to pivot into a playmaking role, the hidden costs were steep. He managed five assists in just 15 minutes during the 03/13 vs UTA contest, but his sheer lack of scoring gravity—managing just two points on three shot attempts—allowed defenders to sag off him entirely, dragging his impact down to an abysmal -10.9. A bench wing simply cannot survive in the modern league when his baseline floor relies entirely on whether a highly volatile three-point shot happens to drop.

Jayson Kent
Forward Yr 0 5G
-6.5
2.0 pts
1.0 reb
0.0 ast
4.5 min
Blake Wesley
Guard Yr 3 35G
-6.8
4.3 pts
1.1 reb
1.8 ast
10.4 min

Blake Wesley spent this ten-game stretch clinging to the absolute fringes of the rotation, failing to generate any positive momentum. Even when he finally earned an extended look on 03/23 vs BKN, the surface-level production was deceiving. He tallied 9 points and 5 assists in 20 minutes, but severe defensive lapses and empty-calorie possessions dragged him down to a -3.1 Impact score. He repeatedly squandered his brief cameos. On 04/08 vs SAS, Wesley forced up four shots in just four minutes, missing three of them to post a dismal -12.2 Impact. Sometimes he barely registered on the court at all, logging a single minute of pure cardio with zero stats on 03/13 vs UTA that somehow resulted in a staggering -13.8 Impact. When a guard cannot string together effective shifts or hit from beyond the arc—bricking all six of his three-point attempts during this span—it becomes incredibly hard to justify keeping him on the floor.

Duop Reath
Center Yr 2 32G
-7.1
2.9 pts
1.2 reb
0.3 ast
8.1 min

Duop Reath spent this ten-game stretch marooned at the end of the rotation, battling a severe offensive slump that rendered him nearly unplayable. During an abysmal outing on 12/23 vs DET, he posted a staggering -13.4 impact score in just six minutes. That disastrous rating was the direct result of empty cardio, missing both of his shots, and failing to generate any meaningful resistance on the floor. He finally found a sliver of utility on 01/18 vs LAL, grinding out a +1.0 impact score despite scoring only five points. That rare positive mark stemmed entirely from his effort on the glass. He secured five rebounds and did the dirty work inside instead of forcing bad looks. Contrast that with his performance on 01/16 vs ATL, where he tallied a stretch-high eight points but still finished in the red with a -0.8 impact. The hidden cost in that matchup was his erratic shot selection; chucking six three-pointers to scrape together those points derailed the offensive flow and completely negated his scoring entirely.

Sidy Cissoko
Guard Yr 2 79G (26S)
-8.0
5.0 pts
2.2 reb
1.4 ast
18.5 min

Sidy Cissoko spent this late-season stretch drowning in a brutal offensive slump. He was completely unable to carve out a reliable role, bleeding value almost every time he stepped onto the hardwood. His lone flash of competence arrived on 03/13 vs UTA. He aggressively hunted his shot to drop 14 points on 6-of-10 shooting, earning a +3.6 Impact score by finally finishing plays instead of deferring. However, when gifted a temporary spot in the starting lineup on 03/23 vs BKN, the experiment collapsed. Despite logging 28 minutes and tallying four assists, his passive 2-of-5 shooting and porous defensive rotations resulted in a miserable -14.0 Impact score. Disasters like 04/06 vs DEN, where he went scoreless and posted a staggering -16.3 Impact in just eight minutes, told the real story. He simply consumed empty minutes, bricking outside looks and failing to justify a spot in an NBA rotation.

Rayan Rupert
Guard-Forward Yr 2 48G
-9.1
2.9 pts
1.8 reb
0.7 ast
12.0 min

Rayan Rupert’s late-season stretch was a chaotic roller coaster, morphing him from an invisible bench warmer into an erratic, high-usage focal point. Look no further than his start in the 03/23 vs ATL matchup, where 30 empty minutes of scoreless basketball and poor defensive resistance doomed him to an abysmal -22.0 Impact score. Yet, he looked like a completely different player during the 04/05 vs MIL contest. He exploded for 33 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists, generating a massive +28.9 Impact by crashing the glass and orchestrating the offense flawlessly. The pendulum swung back quickly during the 04/10 vs UTA game. Despite grabbing 12 boards and scoring 16 points, his night resulted in a disappointing -2.9 Impact. The hidden cost of that raw production was truly atrocious shot selection, as he hijacked the floor to clank his way to a 7-for-25 shooting performance.

Javonte Cooke
Guard Yr 0 19G
-9.3
1.2 pts
1.0 reb
0.4 ast
4.9 min
Yang Hansen
Center Yr 0 47G (1S)
-9.9
2.0 pts
1.4 reb
0.5 ast
6.5 min

Hansen Yang spent this late-season stretch marooned at the end of the bench, struggling to stay afloat during fleeting garbage-time cameos. Even when given a longer leash, he actively hurt the team with erratic shot selection. During an 11-minute stint on 03/29 vs WAS, Yang scored a stretch-high six points but posted a dismal -10.7 impact score because he forced up ugly jumpers and shot a woeful 1-for-5 from the floor. Shorter appearances were often complete disasters. He logged a catastrophic -17.9 impact in just three minutes on 02/07 vs MEM, running around aimlessly without attempting a single shot and bleeding points on the defensive end. Ironically, his only positive game occurred when he completely disappeared from the box score. On 04/10 vs LAC, Yang recorded a +0.3 impact in two minutes with zero points and zero rebounds, generating value simply by avoiding mistakes and playing quiet positional basketball. For a big man fighting for NBA survival, hemorrhaging value this rapidly in mop-up duty is a glaring red flag.

L
@ SAS SAS
95 POR SAS 114
SAS @ SAS
95 114
Tue, Apr 28
Playoffs Analysis
-19
L
vs SAS SAS
114 SAS POR 93
SAS vs SAS
93 114
Sun, Apr 26
Playoffs Analysis
-21
L
vs SAS SAS
120 SAS POR 108
SAS vs SAS
108 120
Fri, Apr 24
Playoffs Analysis
-12
W
@ SAS SAS
106 POR SAS 103
SAS @ SAS
106 103
Tue, Apr 21
Playoffs Analysis
+3
L
@ SAS SAS
98 POR SAS 111
SAS @ SAS
98 111
Sun, Apr 19
Playoffs Analysis
-13
W
@ PHX PHX
114 POR PHX 110
PHX @ PHX
114 110
Tue, Apr 14
Play-In Analysis
+4
W
vs SAC SAC
110 SAC POR 122
SAC vs SAC
122 110
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
+12
W
vs LAC LAC
97 LAC POR 116
LAC vs LAC
116 97
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
+19
L
@ SAS SAS
101 POR SAS 112
SAS @ SAS
101 112
Wed, Apr 8
Analysis
-11
L
@ DEN DEN
132 POR DEN 137
DEN @ DEN
132 137
Mon, Apr 6
Analysis
-5
W
vs NOP NOP
106 NOP POR 118
NOP vs NOP
118 106
Thu, Apr 2
Analysis
+12
W
@ LAC LAC
114 POR LAC 104
LAC @ LAC
114 104
Tue, Mar 31
Analysis
+10
W
vs WAS WAS
88 WAS POR 123
WAS vs WAS
123 88
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
+35
L
vs DAL DAL
100 DAL POR 93
DAL vs DAL
93 100
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
-7
W
vs MIL MIL
99 MIL POR 130
MIL vs MIL
130 99
Wed, Mar 25
Analysis
+31
W
vs BKN BKN
99 BKN POR 134
BKN vs BKN
134 99
Mon, Mar 23
Analysis
+35
L
@ DEN DEN
112 POR DEN 128
DEN @ DEN
112 128
Sun, Mar 22
Analysis
-16
W
@ MIN MIN
108 POR MIN 104
MIN @ MIN
108 104
Fri, Mar 20
Analysis
+4
W
@ IND IND
127 POR IND 119
IND @ IND
127 119
Wed, Mar 18
Analysis
+8
W
@ BKN BKN
114 POR BKN 95
BKN @ BKN
114 95
Mon, Mar 16
Analysis
+19
L
@ PHI PHI
103 POR PHI 109
PHI @ PHI
103 109
Sun, Mar 15
Analysis
-6
W
vs UTA UTA
114 UTA POR 124
UTA vs UTA
124 114
Fri, Mar 13
Analysis
+10
L
vs CHA CHA
103 CHA POR 101
CHA vs CHA
101 103
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
-2
W
vs IND IND
111 IND POR 131
IND vs IND
131 111
Sun, Mar 8
Analysis
+20
L
@ HOU HOU
99 POR HOU 106
HOU @ HOU
99 106
Fri, Mar 6
Analysis
-7
W
@ MEM MEM
122 POR MEM 114
MEM @ MEM
122 114
Wed, Mar 4
Analysis
+8
L
@ ATL ATL
101 POR ATL 135
ATL @ ATL
101 135
Sun, Mar 1
Analysis
-34
L
@ CHA CHA
93 POR CHA 109
CHA @ CHA
93 109
Sat, Feb 28
Analysis
-16
W
@ CHI CHI
121 POR CHI 112
CHI @ CHI
121 112
Thu, Feb 26
Analysis
+9
L
vs MIN MIN
124 MIN POR 121
MIN vs MIN
121 124
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
-3
W
@ PHX PHX
92 POR PHX 77
PHX @ PHX
92 77
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
+15
L
vs DEN DEN
157 DEN POR 103
DEN vs DEN
103 157
Fri, Feb 20
Analysis
-54
W
@ UTA UTA
135 POR UTA 119
UTA @ UTA
135 119
Thu, Feb 12
Analysis
+16
L
@ MIN MIN
109 POR MIN 133
MIN @ MIN
109 133
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
-24
W
vs PHI PHI
118 PHI POR 135
PHI vs PHI
135 118
Mon, Feb 9
Analysis
+17
W
vs MEM MEM
115 MEM POR 122
MEM vs MEM
122 115
Sat, Feb 7
Analysis
+7
W
vs MEM MEM
115 MEM POR 135
MEM vs MEM
135 115
Fri, Feb 6
Analysis
+20
L
vs PHX PHX
130 PHX POR 125
PHX vs PHX
125 130
Tue, Feb 3
Analysis
-5
L
vs CLE CLE
130 CLE POR 111
CLE vs CLE
111 130
Sun, Feb 1
Analysis
-19
L
@ NYK NYK
97 POR NYK 127
NYK @ NYK
97 127
Fri, Jan 30
Analysis
-30
L
@ WAS WAS
111 POR WAS 115
WAS @ WAS
111 115
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
-4
L
@ BOS BOS
94 POR BOS 102
BOS @ BOS
94 102
Tue, Jan 27
Analysis
-8
L
vs TOR TOR
110 TOR POR 98
TOR vs TOR
98 110
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
-12
W
vs MIA MIA
110 MIA POR 127
MIA vs MIA
127 110
Fri, Jan 23
Analysis
+17
W
@ SAC SAC
117 POR SAC 110
SAC @ SAC
117 110
Mon, Jan 19
Analysis
+7
W
vs LAL LAL
116 LAL POR 132
LAL vs LAL
132 116
Sun, Jan 18
Analysis
+16
W
vs ATL ATL
101 ATL POR 117
ATL vs ATL
117 101
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
+16
L
@ GSW GSW
97 POR GSW 119
GSW @ GSW
97 119
Wed, Jan 14
Analysis
-22
L
vs NYK NYK
123 NYK POR 114
NYK vs NYK
114 123
Sun, Jan 11
Analysis
-9
W
vs HOU HOU
105 HOU POR 111
HOU vs HOU
111 105
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
+6
W
vs HOU HOU
102 HOU POR 103
HOU vs HOU
103 102
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
+1
W
vs UTA UTA
117 UTA POR 137
UTA vs UTA
137 117
Tue, Jan 6
Analysis
+20
W
@ SAS SAS
115 POR SAS 110
SAS @ SAS
115 110
Sun, Jan 4
Analysis
+5
W
@ NOP NOP
122 POR NOP 109
NOP @ NOP
122 109
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
+13
L
@ OKC OKC
95 POR OKC 124
OKC @ OKC
95 124
Thu, Jan 1
Analysis
-29
W
vs DAL DAL
122 DAL POR 125
DAL vs DAL
125 122
Tue, Dec 30
Analysis
+3
W
vs BOS BOS
108 BOS POR 114
BOS vs BOS
114 108
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
+6
L
vs LAC LAC
119 LAC POR 103
LAC vs LAC
103 119
Sat, Dec 27
Analysis
-16
L
vs ORL ORL
110 ORL POR 106
ORL vs ORL
106 110
Wed, Dec 24
Analysis
-4
L
vs DET DET
110 DET POR 102
DET vs DET
102 110
Tue, Dec 23
Analysis
-8
W
@ SAC SAC
98 POR SAC 93
SAC @ SAC
98 93
Sun, Dec 21
Analysis
+5
W
vs SAC SAC
133 SAC POR 134
SAC vs SAC
134 133
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
+1
W
vs GSW GSW
131 GSW POR 136
GSW vs GSW
136 131
Mon, Dec 15
Analysis
+5
L
@ NOP NOP
120 POR NOP 143
NOP @ NOP
120 143
Fri, Dec 12
Analysis
-23
L
@ MEM MEM
96 POR MEM 119
MEM @ MEM
96 119
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
-23
L
@ DET DET
116 POR DET 122
DET @ DET
116 122
Sat, Dec 6
Analysis
-6
W
@ CLE CLE
122 POR CLE 110
CLE @ CLE
122 110
Thu, Dec 4
Analysis
+12
L
@ TOR TOR
118 POR TOR 121
TOR @ TOR
118 121
Wed, Dec 3
Analysis
-3
L
vs OKC OKC
123 OKC POR 115
OKC vs OKC
115 123
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
-8
L
vs SAS SAS
115 SAS POR 102
SAS vs SAS
102 115
Thu, Nov 27
Analysis
-13
W
@ MIL MIL
115 POR MIL 103
MIL @ MIL
115 103
Tue, Nov 25
Analysis
+12
L
@ OKC OKC
95 POR OKC 122
OKC @ OKC
95 122
Mon, Nov 24
Analysis
-27
W
@ GSW GSW
127 POR GSW 123
GSW @ GSW
127 123
Sat, Nov 22
Analysis
+4
L
vs CHI CHI
122 CHI POR 121
CHI vs CHI
121 122
Thu, Nov 20
Analysis
-1
L
vs PHX PHX
127 PHX POR 110
PHX vs PHX
110 127
Wed, Nov 19
Analysis
-17
L
@ DAL DAL
133 POR DAL 138
DAL @ DAL
133 138
Mon, Nov 17
Analysis
-5
L
@ HOU HOU
116 POR HOU 140
HOU @ HOU
116 140
Sat, Nov 15
Analysis
-24
W
@ NOP NOP
125 POR NOP 117
NOP @ NOP
125 117
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
+8
L
@ ORL ORL
112 POR ORL 115
ORL @ ORL
112 115
Tue, Nov 11
Analysis
-3
L
@ MIA MIA
131 POR MIA 136
MIA @ MIA
131 136
Sun, Nov 9
Analysis
-5
W
vs OKC OKC
119 OKC POR 121
OKC vs OKC
121 119
Thu, Nov 6
Analysis
+2
L
vs LAL LAL
123 LAL POR 115
LAL vs LAL
115 123
Tue, Nov 4
Analysis
-8
W
vs DEN DEN
107 DEN POR 109
DEN vs DEN
109 107
Sat, Nov 1
Analysis
+2
W
@ UTA UTA
136 POR UTA 134
UTA @ UTA
136 134
Thu, Oct 30
Analysis
+2
W
@ LAL LAL
122 POR LAL 108
LAL @ LAL
122 108
Mon, Oct 27
Analysis
+14
L
@ LAC LAC
107 POR LAC 114
LAC @ LAC
107 114
Sun, Oct 26
Analysis
-7
W
vs GSW GSW
119 GSW POR 139
GSW vs GSW
139 119
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
+20
L
vs MIN MIN
118 MIN POR 114
MIN vs MIN
114 118
Wed, Oct 22
Analysis
-4