Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
HOU lead POR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
POR 2P — 3P —
HOU 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 195 attempts

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Sharpe 7/16 -1.6
Avdija 7/15 +0.7
Camara 6/12 +0.9
Holiday Hard 4/9 +0.9
Clingan 4/9 -2.7
Grant 4/8 +0.5
Murray 2/6 -2.2
Williams III Open 2/5 -2.5
Love Hard 2/4 +1.5
Cissoko 2/3 +1.2

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Durant Hard 12/19 +9.0
Thompson 6/17 -6.6
Smith Jr. 9/16 +4.5
Sengun 9/13 +8.1
Sheppard Hard 5/12 +1.1
Okogie Open 5/9 -0.3
Holiday Hard 3/6 +1.4
Eason Hard 1/6 -3.3
Adams Open 2/4 -1.6
Capela Open 1/3 -1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
POR
HOU
42/89 Field Goals 53/106
47.2% Field Goal % 50.0%
13/36 3-Pointers 17/45
36.1% 3-Point % 37.8%
19/27 Free Throws 17/20
70.4% Free Throw % 85.0%
57.5% True Shooting % 61.0%
55 Total Rebounds 56
16 Offensive 20
28 Defensive 29
18 Assists 26
0.90 Assist/TO Ratio 4.33
20 Turnovers 6
4 Steals 16
2 Blocks 6
18 Fouls 22
54 Points in Paint 56
9 Fast Break Pts 23
11 Points off TOs 30
33 Second Chance Pts 21
37 Bench Points 33
9 Largest Lead 30
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Alperen Sengun
25 PTS · 10 REB · 9 AST · 36.5 MIN
+38.43
2
Kevin Durant
30 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 35.7 MIN
+22.19
3
Jabari Smith Jr.
22 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 26.7 MIN
+18.2
4
Josh Okogie
11 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 20.8 MIN
+16.76
5
Reed Sheppard
13 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 25.8 MIN
+16.32
6
Amen Thompson
19 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 32.5 MIN
+16.03
7
Jrue Holiday
13 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 29.5 MIN
+14.8
8
Steven Adams
5 PTS · 11 REB · 0 AST · 17.5 MIN
+13.9
9
Donovan Clingan
9 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 24.0 MIN
+10.29
10
Shaedon Sharpe
19 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 31.1 MIN
+7.55
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 D. Reath 25' 3PT (5 PTS) (S. Cissoko 1 AST) 116–140
Q4 0:17 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–140
Q4 0:20 MISS S. Cissoko 12' fadeaway Shot 113–140
Q4 0:39 A. Holiday Free Throw 2 of 2 (10 PTS) 113–140
Q4 0:39 A. Holiday Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 113–139
Q4 0:39 S. Cissoko personal FOUL (1 PF) (Holiday 2 FT) 113–138
Q4 0:46 TEAM defensive REBOUND 113–138
Q4 0:47 MISS C. Love 28' 3PT 113–138
Q4 0:57 C. Capela tip Layup (2 PTS) 113–138
Q4 0:57 C. Capela REBOUND (Off:3 Def:1) 113–136
Q4 0:57 MISS C. Capela tip Layup 113–136
Q4 0:57 C. Capela REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 113–136
Q4 0:58 MISS J. Tate driving Layup 113–136
Q4 1:20 S. Cissoko driving Layup (4 PTS) 113–136
Q4 1:26 A. Holiday Free Throw 2 of 2 (8 PTS) 111–136

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Alperen Sengun 36.5m
25
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
+34.9

Dominated every facet of the game by operating as the central offensive hub and dissecting double teams with elite vision. Massive hustle and defensive metrics reflect his relentless effort in generating deflections and securing contested rebounds.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +21.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +9.8
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 35.7m
30
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.2

Carried the offensive load with lethal mid-range execution, punishing drop coverages all night. His high positive score was slightly capped by a few forced passes out of double teams, but his sheer shot-making efficiency drove the positive result.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +44.6
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 32.5m
19
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.2

Generated constant rim pressure, but terrible finishing and missed perimeter shots severely dragged down his efficiency. His impact stayed barely positive thanks to relentless offensive rebounding and disruptive point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Caught fire from beyond the arc, utilizing his size to shoot over late closeouts. While his scoring efficiency was stellar, a negative defensive rating from losing his man off the ball kept his overall impact from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense -7.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Okogie 20.8m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Wreaked havoc defensively by blowing up dribble hand-offs and fighting through screens. This elite defensive pressure, combined with timely backdoor cuts, resulted in a highly efficient and impactful performance well above his recent averages.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

Overcame a streaky shooting night by making high-IQ plays in the passing lanes and diving for loose balls. His stellar hustle metrics and off-ball defensive awareness were the true engines behind his positive net score.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +7.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 17.5m
5
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Battered opponents in the paint, creating extra possessions through sheer physical dominance on the offensive glass. His massive defensive impact score stems from elite positional rim protection that deterred countless drives.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +56.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +9.1
Defense +3.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Delivered a nice scoring punch off the bench, but gave up too much ground on the defensive end against bigger guards. A couple of ill-advised fouls in the bonus negated the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 10.7m
3
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Forced several contested shots at the rim, leading to empty possessions that stalled the offense. Despite bringing his usual high-energy defense, his poor shot selection ultimately dragged his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Acted as a stabilizing interior presence during his short stint, altering shots without committing fouls. A lack of offensive involvement limited his upside, but his fundamental drop coverage kept his score slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

Brought immediate physicality and hustle, fighting hard for positioning on the block. However, an inability to space the floor or connect on his lone attempt kept his net score marginally below zero.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 4.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.5

Looked a step slow on defensive rotations during his brief time on the court. Giving up easy driving lanes without offering any offensive production resulted in a quick negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 3.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Struggled to initiate the offense during garbage time, leading to a stagnant stretch of basketball. A pair of quick turnovers against perimeter pressure heavily penalized his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -85.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.7
Turnovers -0.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 33.4m
16
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

A solid shooting night was completely undone by defensive breakdowns and poorly timed fouls. His inability to stay in front of his primary matchup allowed a barrage of straight-line drives, negating any value he provided on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Shaedon Sharpe 31.1m
19
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

Settled for contested perimeter jumpers instead of attacking the paint, dragging down his offensive efficiency. A string of careless passes in the third quarter heavily penalized his net score, overshadowing his otherwise active defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 30.3m
22
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Despite maintaining his recent scoring volume, his overall impact plummeted due to costly live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses. He forced too many drives into traffic, resulting in empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +7.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 7
S Jrue Holiday 29.5m
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.0

Excellent point-of-attack defense and steady playmaking kept his baseline value afloat despite a dip in scoring volume. The negative final tally stems primarily from a handful of uncharacteristic passing errors that led directly to fast-break points.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 24.0m
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Anchored the interior with strong rim protection, altering several attempts during a crucial second-quarter stretch. However, his overall impact remained muted because of missed close-range bunnies and offensive fouls on screens.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +10.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jerami Grant 28.7m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Struggled to generate consistent offense against physical wing defenders, leading to stagnant isolation possessions. His lack of secondary playmaking and minimal rebounding presence meant he offered little value when he wasn't actively shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -46.6
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kris Murray 22.1m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Failed to capitalize on open spot-up looks, which bogged down the half-court offense. His low hustle metrics reflect a tendency to float on the perimeter rather than crashing the glass or fighting through screens.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Provided his usual vertical spacing and shot-blocking threat during a brief stint on the floor. Unfortunately, his impact was dragged into the red by poor positioning on defensive rebounds, giving up vital second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Sidy Cissoko 10.1m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Showed flashes of scoring improvement but gave it all back through sloppy defensive rotations. A complete lack of hustle plays and poor closeouts left shooters wide open, tanking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +49.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 6.8m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Made the most of a short rotation stint by executing perfectly as a pick-and-pop outlet. A quick flurry of decisive offensive actions allowed him to post a positive net score in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 4.6m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Injected immediate offensive energy with aggressive shot-hunting off the bench. His quick trigger kept the defense honest, providing a slight positive bump during a brief late-game cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Barely registered on the offensive end, acting strictly as a passive floor spacer. A couple of missed defensive assignments in transition were enough to push his brief appearance into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0