GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 41.7m
41
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+39.5

Relentless downhill attacking and unbelievable finishing through contact produced a generational impact score. He lived in the paint, blowing past primary defenders and finishing over rim protectors with ease. Adding suffocating perimeter defense to his offensive explosion made this a career-defining performance.

Shooting
FG 17/22 (77.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.7m
Offense +45.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +50.9
Avg player in 41.7m -11.4
Impact +39.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Wasted offensive possessions and clanked perimeter looks severely damaged his overall value despite strong defensive metrics. He consistently settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, bailing out the opposing defense. Even his switchable perimeter defense couldn't salvage the points lost to his inefficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 39.6m -18.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kevin Durant 38.7m
33
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+21.0

A masterclass in mid-range shot creation and weak-side rim protection drove a dominant positive rating. He systematically dismantled switch coverages, punishing smaller defenders with unmatched efficiency. His towering presence disrupted multiple passing lanes, proving his two-way impact remains at an elite level.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +11.1
Raw total +39.9
Avg player in 38.7m -18.9
Impact +21.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 28.9m
22
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.9

Operating as an offensive hub out of the high post, his surgical passing and elite interior finishing generated a massive positive swing. He routinely spun past single coverage and punished double-teams with pinpoint kick-outs. A slight defensive liability in drop coverage was the only blemish on a stellar offensive clinic.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense -6.1
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 28.9m -9.9
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 78.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Josh Okogie 27.2m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.7

Offensive futility completely tanked his rating, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt. While he brought his usual chaotic energy and point-of-attack defense, his inability to space the floor clogged the driving lanes for everyone else. Opponents actively sagged off him, daring him to shoot and blowing up the team's half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 27.2m -21.3
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Tari Eason 23.7m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-20.2

A total offensive blackout and forced attempts in traffic resulted in a catastrophic net rating. He looked completely out of sync, driving into crowds and coughing up empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Even his typically reliable defensive instincts couldn't stop the bleeding from his disastrous offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total -3.7
Avg player in 23.7m -16.5
Impact -20.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Forcing the issue offensively with tough, contested perimeter jumpers dragged his overall impact down significantly. He struggled to create separation against longer defenders, resulting in a string of empty possessions. Minor defensive miscommunications further compounded his inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.7
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 18.2m -7.8
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Getting pushed around on the interior and arriving late on defensive rotations kept his brief stint in the red. He converted his few lob opportunities efficiently but failed to anchor the paint defensively. Opposing bigs easily established deep post position against him during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -3.7
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 8.5m -12.8
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Struggled to find a rhythm or make a tangible impact during his short run, leading to a minor negative rating. He provided adequate physicality on the wing but couldn't generate any meaningful advantages offensively. His presence was largely neutral, though a few stalled possessions tipped the scales slightly downward.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 7.8m -13.7
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

A completely passive stint where he failed to register a single shot attempt resulted in a negative score. He merely swung the ball along the perimeter without threatening the defense or initiating any real rim pressure. This lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.8m -14.0
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 35.0m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Despite elite hustle metrics and disruptive perimeter defense, poor shot selection dragged his overall impact into the red. Clanking multiple looks from beyond the arc and forcing contested twos negated his otherwise stellar work on the margins. His relentless energy on the glass couldn't rescue an inefficient scoring night.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 35.0m -13.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
S Kyle Anderson 32.9m
17
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+11.8

A massive offensive surge compared to his recent baseline fueled a strong positive impact. His ability to consistently find open teammates while scoring efficiently inside the arc completely tilted the floor. Sturdy defensive rotations and active hands ensured his offensive contributions translated directly to the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 32.9m -13.3
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Settling for high-variance perimeter jumpers limited his overall effectiveness, keeping his net impact in the negative. He provided solid point-of-attack defense and active hustle, but the empty possessions from deep stalled offensive momentum. A few ill-advised transition threes ultimately outweighed his defensive grit.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 29.1m -13.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 27.1m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.1

A stark defensive drop-off completely erased the value of his perimeter shot-making. While he found his rhythm offensively after a recent slump, getting consistently beaten off the dribble allowed opponents to answer right back. The scoring volume ultimately masked how much ground he surrendered on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense -4.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 27.1m -10.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Joan Beringer 25.7m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

Flawless execution around the rim and suffocating defensive pressure resulted in a massive net positive. He capitalized on every single offensive touch, punishing defensive lapses without wasting a single possession. This highly efficient, low-mistake profile perfectly anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.6%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 25.7m -17.6
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.4

Lethal spot-up shooting from beyond the arc single-handedly kept his impact in the green. He exploited defensive closeouts brilliantly, though a lack of resistance on the other end prevented a monster overall rating. His offensive explosion masked a relatively quiet night in the hustle department.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 27.9m -3.9
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 26.0m
15
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Quiet stretches off the ball and an inability to dictate the game's tempo resulted in a slightly negative overall rating. While his shot selection remained disciplined, he failed to generate the rim pressure that usually defines his game. Minor defensive lapses in transition ultimately tipped his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 26.0m -16.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Mike Conley 24.1m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Perfect shooting from the perimeter wasn't enough to overcome the physical toll of guarding quicker guards at the point of attack. He managed the offense efficiently without forcing looks, but struggled to navigate screens defensively. The lack of overall volume meant his few mistakes carried a disproportionate weight on his net score.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 24.1m -15.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 12.2m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.8

Complete offensive invisibility severely handicapped his court time, dragging his net score down. He brought his trademark defensive intensity and fought hard through screens, but opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter. Being a non-threat with the ball effectively forced his team to play four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 12.2m -14.6
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1