GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 43.5m
22
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Relentless rim pressure and elite transition finishing kept his impact in the green during a marathon shift. However, defensive mistakes or ball-control issues likely prevented his stellar finishing from translating into a monster net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.5m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 43.5m -23.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
21
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brutal interior shooting performance tanked his overall rating, as he missed a massive volume of shots inside the arc. Forcing tough looks in traffic completely overshadowed the spacing value of his perimeter makes.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 37.0m -20.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 36.1m
14
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.6

Massive hustle metrics couldn't save a performance marred by inefficient finishing around the basket. Missing eight shots in the paint killed offensive possessions, neutralizing the extra opportunities he generated through sheer effort.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +7.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 36.1m -19.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kevin Durant 35.2m
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Clanking ten shots—many of them uncharacteristic misses from his favorite midrange spots—cratered his offensive value. Although he competed hard defensively, the sheer volume of empty possessions he authored dragged the entire unit down.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.1
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 35.2m -19.5
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Steven Adams 23.1m
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Provided exactly the kind of bruising, low-maintenance interior presence required to stabilize the second unit. His perfect shot selection and sturdy screen-setting created a reliable foundation, even if his raw offensive volume was low.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 23.1m -12.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
27
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.0

Torched defensive coverages with lethal perimeter shot-making and impeccable shot selection. By punishing late closeouts and avoiding empty possessions, he engineered a massive offensive surge whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +21.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +31.2
Avg player in 36.8m -20.2
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Completely derailed the second-unit offense by bricking multiple perimeter looks and failing to initiate sets. A total lack of defensive resistance compounded his offensive struggles, resulting in a disastrous plus-minus for such a short shift.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 13.5m -7.5
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 11.1m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Settling exclusively for three-pointers—and missing most of them—limited his effectiveness in a short burst. His inability to pressure the rim or generate defensive stops left him as a slight net negative despite the spacing attempt.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 11.1m -6.1
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Made an immediate defensive imprint during a microscopic stint by altering shots at the rim. Even with two quick misses offensively, his vertical deterrence was enough to swing the margins positively.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 3.8m -2.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 40.5m
26
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+0.8

High-level playmaking and highly efficient scoring were nearly entirely offset by defensive lapses or ball-security issues. While he orchestrated the half-court offense beautifully, giving points back on the other end kept his net impact surprisingly muted.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 40.5m -22.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Nikola Jokić 39.3m
34
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
+21.8

Absolute dominance across all phases of the game, highlighted by surgical perimeter shooting that stretched the defense to its breaking point. His massive defensive impact shows he controlled the passing lanes just as effectively as he commanded the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +10.1
Raw total +43.4
Avg player in 39.3m -21.6
Impact +21.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Peyton Watson 34.2m
9
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Defensive metrics suggest he was a disruptor on the perimeter, but hidden negative plays gutted his overall impact. Costly turnovers or defensive fouls likely erased the value of his high-energy contests and efficient, albeit low-volume, shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.4
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 34.2m -18.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Cameron Johnson 32.2m
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Poor shot creation heavily weighed down his overall rating despite decent positional defense. Failing to capitalize on open looks forced the offense to stall during his minutes, neutralizing the value of his off-ball rotations.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 32.2m -17.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Aaron Gordon 3.4m
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

A brief, ineffective stint defined by an inability to find a rhythm before exiting early. Missing his only look and failing to generate any hustle stats left a noticeable void in the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 3.4m -1.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Chucking from beyond the arc without connecting severely damaged offensive momentum. Even with decent secondary metrics, his negative value was driven by settling for contested jumpers early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 31.5m -17.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Operated mostly as a ghost in the half-court, attempting just a single shot in over twenty minutes of action. While he chipped in with solid hustle plays, his extreme passivity allowed defenders to completely ignore him and crowd the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 2.0%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 21.7m -12.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 20.9m
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.0

Wreaked havoc as a point-of-attack defender, generating immense value through deflections and transition pushes. His relentless motor on 50/50 balls completely shifted the tempo whenever he stepped on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 20.9m -11.5
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Struggled to anchor the paint during his limited run, bleeding value through defensive immobility. Despite converting around the rim, his inability to deter drivers or secure contested loose balls resulted in a net negative shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 16.2m -8.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1