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

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Brutal perimeter shooting derailed his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced contested catch-and-shoot looks. Despite the offensive struggles, he remained highly engaged defensively, using his length to protect the weak side. The sheer volume of wasted possessions, however, dragged the unit's offensive rating into the mud during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 38.1m
17
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.9

An inability to finish through double-teams in the post resulted in a highly inefficient scoring night. He forced heavily contested hooks and floaters instead of kicking out to open shooters, stalling the offensive flow. While his defensive positioning remained solid, the offensive black hole created by forced shots negated those positives.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +8.9
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 36.8m
37
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+41.5

Unstoppable isolation scoring tore apart the opponent's defensive coverages. He drew constant fouls and converted efficiently from the perimeter, serving as the ultimate bail-out option late in the shot clock. His length on defense also disrupted passing lanes, compounding his massive offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 16/18 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +29.2
Creation +3.8
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Amen Thompson 30.0m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

A lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag off and pack the paint, completely bogging down the half-court offense. He struggled to read the secondary line of defense, leading to forced drives into traffic and empty possessions. The inability to dictate pace or break down his man in isolation resulted in a cratered net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Steven Adams 25.2m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+19.1

Immovable screen-setting and elite box-outs created massive structural advantages for the offense. He completely neutralized the opposing center physically, converting all of his looks around the rim with zero wasted motion. His defensive anchoring deterred penetration, forcing opponents into low-percentage mid-range jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +11.7
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 28.4m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Offensive invisibility limited his effectiveness, as he struggled to find driving lanes against a set defense. He provided his usual chaotic energy on the glass and in passing lanes, but it wasn't enough to swing the momentum. The lack of scoring punch from the wing put too much pressure on the primary creators during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Frigid shooting inside the arc undermined an otherwise stellar defensive performance. He was a menace at the point of attack, generating deflections and navigating screens with veteran poise. Unfortunately, his missed floaters and inability to finish at the rim kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Okogie 17.4m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Opportunistic cutting and transition leaks resulted in a highly efficient scoring burst. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications, converting easy looks at the rim to shatter his usual scoring average. His relentless motor on both ends injected pace into the lineup and tilted the floor in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Maximized his extremely brief stint by executing his role perfectly as a rim-runner. He secured the paint defensively and provided a reliable lob threat during a quick rotation. His flawless execution in a micro-shift gave the starters a clean breather without bleeding points.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Tobias Harris 40.1m
9
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.6

An uncharacteristically cold shooting night tanked his offensive value despite a strong defensive rating. He struggled to find rhythm against physical closeouts, resulting in forced attempts late in the shot clock. However, his off-ball rotations and weak-side help partially mitigated the damage of his scoring drought.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 39.3m
21
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.3

Heavy usage without the requisite efficiency dragged down his overall impact, likely exacerbated by live-ball turnovers. He settled for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than pressuring the rim, stalling the half-court offense. The playmaking volume couldn't overcome the negative swings caused by empty possessions and defensive lapses in transition.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense -4.2
Turnovers -19.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
S Duncan Robinson 38.2m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.8

Lethal perimeter spacing bent the opposing defense and opened up driving lanes for his teammates. His constant off-ball motion forced defensive miscommunications, generating high-quality looks from deep. Surprisingly active hands in passing lanes contributed to a positive defensive impact, rounding out a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 24.3m
19
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Efficient interior finishing fueled a massive offensive surge compared to his recent baseline. Relentless activity on the margins translated into a robust hustle score, keeping possessions alive and generating second-chance opportunities. His defensive versatility allowed the perimeter unit to switch seamlessly across multiple positions.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 12.0m
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.1

Foul trouble or a strict minutes limit capped his playing time, but he was highly effective in his brief stint as a vertical spacer. His defensive positioning deterred drives to the rim, anchoring the paint during his short rotation. The lack of volume was offset by clinical execution on rim-runs and lob finishes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Poor finishing at the rim negated the value of his aggressive off-ball cuts. He provided solid point-of-attack defense, navigating screens well to stay attached to his assignment. Unfortunately, the missed layups and erratic shot selection in traffic overshadowed his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 19.4m
13
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Relentless offensive rebounding and put-backs punished the opposing frontcourt. He thrived in the dunker spot, converting dump-off passes with high-level efficiency. His chaotic but effective energy disrupted the opponent's defensive rebounding scheme, securing crucial extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +10.5
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

A lack of offensive gravity allowed his primary defender to roam and clog the paint for others. He struggled to finish through contact around the basket, wasting valuable half-court sets. While he battled for positioning inside, the inability to convert those physical advantages into points severely limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Timely perimeter shot-making provided a crucial spark off the bench, doubling his usual scoring output. He capitalized on broken plays and transition opportunities, attacking closeouts with decisive straight-line drives. His energy in the open court kept the tempo high and forced the defense onto its heels.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Chaz Lanier 11.5m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Played a low-mistake, low-impact role during his limited rotation minutes. His defensive rotations were sharp enough to keep the unit afloat, avoiding any major breakdowns. Offensively, he operated strictly as a floor spacer without commanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A brief cameo yielded a neutral impact as he struggled to find the rhythm that usually drives his scoring. He managed to draw contact and get to the line, salvaging an otherwise quiet offensive stint. Defensively, he mostly stayed out of the way, neither generating stops nor giving up easy angles.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +56.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0