GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 41.8m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

Despite strong point-of-attack defense (+5.4), his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against his drives. He generated decent volume, but the lack of perimeter gravity disrupted the half-court spacing during his heavy minutes. The resulting offensive stagnation ultimately dragged his net impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.8m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 41.8m -25.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kevin Durant 37.7m
29
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

Masterful shot creation and elite efficiency drove a towering box score impact (+21.4) that dictated the game's tempo. He systematically dismantled defensive coverages from the mid-range, punishing every mismatch with surgical precision. Active help defense (+3.7) further cemented his dominance, proving his value extended well beyond pure scoring.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 37.7m -22.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
19
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

A brutal slump from beyond the arc severely handicapped his overall effectiveness, despite solid scoring volume inside the line. Clanking numerous open perimeter looks allowed the defense to sag, bogging down the team's spacing. The heavy accumulation of empty possessions from deep completely erased his otherwise decent defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 34.2m -22.3
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 32.8m
8
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.7

Severe struggles finishing around the basket caused his offensive impact to plummet well below his usual elite standards. He forced heavily contested looks in the paint, breaking the offensive rhythm and fueling opponent transition opportunities. While his defensive rebounding and positioning (+4.4) remained sturdy, the sheer volume of missed bunnies sank his net score.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.4
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 32.8m -19.7
Impact -15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Okogie 21.2m
9
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Relentless energy on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that sparked a massive scoring spike relative to his baseline. He thrived as a chaotic cutter, finding soft spots in the defense to convert highly efficient looks. This gritty, high-motor performance provided a massive jolt of positive impact off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 21.2m -9.7
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 27.2m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.9

A lethal combination of perimeter shot-making and suffocating defense (+6.0) resulted in a massive two-way impact. He punished defensive rotations by burying timely threes, forcing opponents to respect his outside stroke. His relentless hustle (+3.5) created extra possessions, perfectly complementing a highly efficient scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 27.2m -13.4
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Surprisingly stout perimeter defense (+5.0) kept his head above water during a rough shooting night. He struggled to find his rhythm offensively, missing several looks he normally converts to fall sharply below his scoring average. However, his disciplined closeouts and rotational awareness prevented his offensive struggles from hurting the team.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 18.6m -9.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Crisp decision-making and efficient shot selection maximized his value in a limited reserve role. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely cuts and smart perimeter takes, keeping the offense flowing smoothly. Solid point-of-attack pressure (+2.5) rounded out a highly effective two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 14.1m -6.3
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 12.4m
1
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite rim deterrence (+5.5) completely overshadowed a non-existent offensive output during his short stint. He anchored the paint effectively, altering shots and securing the defensive glass to prevent second-chance points. By strictly focusing on his defensive responsibilities, he managed to generate a positive impact without needing to score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 12.4m -6.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 40.1m
21
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.9

Relentless hustle (+5.9) and high-level playmaking drove a massive box score impact across heavy minutes. He consistently generated quality looks for others while exploiting defensive gaps to significantly exceed his recent scoring baseline. His two-way endurance defined this performance, keeping the offensive engine humming without sacrificing perimeter pressure.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +5.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 40.1m -18.4
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tyrese Maxey 33.3m
23
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.4

High-volume shot creation masked underlying defensive vulnerabilities (-1.3) that ultimately pushed his net score into the red. Despite knocking down a barrage of perimeter shots, his struggles to contain dribble penetration gave back much of his offensive production. The heavy reliance on isolation scoring yielded points but failed to generate a positive overall team impact.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 33.3m -17.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 26.7m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

A massive defensive rating (+6.7) anchored his overall positive impact, disrupting passing lanes and staying glued to his assignments. He capitalized on a hot shooting night to blow past his recent scoring averages, providing crucial secondary offense. His ability to convert efficiently from deep kept the floor spaced and maximized his on-court value.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 26.7m -14.1
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paul George 24.1m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.1

An abysmal perimeter shooting night completely cratered his offensive value, as he failed to connect on a single three-point attempt. While his defensive metrics (+4.0) showed he remained engaged on that end, the sheer volume of empty possessions dragged down his overall net score. The stark drop-off from his usual scoring output left a massive void in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 24.1m -12.9
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Adem Bona 15.0m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A complete lack of offensive involvement tanked his net impact during his brief stint on the floor. He failed to establish any interior presence, breaking a streak of highly efficient shooting games by attempting just one shot. Negative defensive metrics further compounded the issue, as he struggled to anchor the paint against opposing bigs.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 15.0m -7.5
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.3

Dominant defensive rebounding and rim deterrence (+7.1) were surprisingly overshadowed by negative overall lineup metrics. While he vacuumed up misses and initiated fast breaks with sharp outlet passes, the offensive flow stagnated during his minutes. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint, subtly dragging down the team's scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 30.0m -14.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Elite defensive positioning (+8.1) and relentless glass-cleaning completely salvaged a disastrous shooting performance. He snapped a highly efficient scoring streak with forced attempts around the rim, but his rim protection neutralized the damage. His willingness to do the dirty work on the interior kept his overall impact slightly in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 26.8m -14.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 0
20
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A sudden and massive scoring surge fueled a highly productive offensive shift. He found his rhythm attacking closeouts, translating aggressive drives into a surprisingly dominant scoring punch. Solid rotational defense and timely hustle plays ensured his breakout offensive night resulted in a positive bottom line.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 26.5m -15.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Inefficient shot selection from the perimeter prevented him from capitalizing on a decent defensive shift. Although he doubled his usual scoring output, the missed opportunities in the half-court stalled offensive momentum. He competed well on the wing, but the lack of offensive gravity ultimately resulted in a negative net score.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 13.2m -6.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Perfect execution in a microscopic sample size yielded a quick burst of positive value. He made the most of his limited rotation minutes by converting his only look and keeping the ball moving. Staying within his role and avoiding mistakes ensured his brief appearance was a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 4.3m -2.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0