GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Alperen Sengun 39.8m
26
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.4

Operated as the central offensive hub, using elite footwork to consistently beat his primary defender in the post. However, his overall impact was slightly muted by pick-and-roll defensive struggles, where guards were able to turn the corner on him too easily. The sheer volume of his interior scoring and physical screen-setting kept his net rating positive.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/11 (54.5%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 39.8m -20.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 39.1m
27
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

Relentless downhill attacking shattered the first line of defense all night, forcing constant defensive collapses. He consistently finished through contact in the paint while maintaining disciplined defensive rotations on the perimeter. The positive impact was driven entirely by his ability to dictate the pace and physically overwhelm his matchups.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 39.1m -20.1
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 38.4m
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Heavy isolation volume and poor perimeter efficiency bogged down the offensive flow, negating his solid defensive metrics. He repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups against set defenses rather than moving the ball. The negative overall impact reflects how his missed shots consistently allowed the opponent to attack in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 38.4m -19.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tari Eason 29.6m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Wreaked havoc as a weak-side roamer, blowing up passing lanes and generating crucial stops that ignited the fast break. His highly efficient shot profile, built entirely on cuts and spot-up opportunities, perfectly complemented the primary creators. This was a masterclass in low-usage, high-impact two-way basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 29.6m -15.2
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Josh Okogie 24.6m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Elite perimeter defense and relentless hustle simply could not overcome his status as an offensive black hole. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, crowding the paint and suffocating the team's spacing. His inability to convert wide-open looks stalled multiple possessions and dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 24.6m -12.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Steven Adams 23.1m
4
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Bone-crushing screens and elite positional rebounding defined a highly effective shift in the middle. He completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack by playing drop coverage with textbook verticality. His value came entirely from doing the dirty work, creating extra possessions without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +8.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 23.1m -11.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggled to find the range from deep, which allowed defenders to go under screens and blow up pick-and-roll actions. While he competed hard on the defensive end, his lack of offensive rhythm created dead possessions that halted momentum. The negative impact was a direct result of his inability to punish defensive sagging.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 16.5m -8.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 10.6m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

Completely dominated the paint during a highly efficient, condensed stint off the bench. He altered multiple shots at the rim and secured crucial defensive rebounds to end opponent possessions. His presence as a massive lob threat forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for shooters.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 10.6m -5.5
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

Provided a quick burst of scoring efficiency but gave it right back with poor point-of-attack defense. Opposing guards easily navigated his pressure, leading to breakdowns in the defensive shell. The result was a perfectly neutral stint where his offensive spark was canceled out by defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 9.7m -5.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Failed to make any sort of dent during his brief minutes, looking entirely disconnected from the offensive flow. His lack of shooting gravity cramped the floor for the second unit, allowing defenders to pack the paint. Without his usual chaotic energy on defense to compensate, his stint was a clear net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 8.5m -4.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 35.9m
29
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

A massive two-way surge defined his night, combining elite rim pressure with lockdown versatility on the other end. He consistently punished mismatches in the post and generated crucial second-chance opportunities through relentless interior hustle. The defensive metrics popped because he successfully anchored the weak side while taking away driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 35.9m -18.5
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cooper Flagg 34.0m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

A stark drop-off in scoring aggression severely limited his typical offensive gravity, making the half-court sets stagnant. Though he maintained a positive defensive baseline by contesting shots on the wing, his hesitancy to attack off the bounce stalled momentum. The negative overall impact stems directly from an uncharacteristically passive approach as a primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 34.0m -17.4
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Max Christie 32.6m
17
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.4

Strong shot-making and secondary playmaking kept his box metrics high, but his overall impact dipped into the red due to defensive lapses in transition. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, allowing opposing guards to get downhill too easily. The scoring punch was ultimately offset by giving up high-value looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 32.6m -16.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 24.9m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.0

Complete dominance in the restricted area fueled a massive positive impact, serving as an impenetrable drop-coverage anchor. He deterred rim attempts and cleaned up the glass with high-motor hustle plays that demoralized the opposition. Offensively, his elite screen-setting and vertical spacing created a constant lob threat that bent the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 24.9m -12.7
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
S Klay Thompson 18.0m
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Brutal perimeter shooting cratered his overall value, as he failed to capitalize on open looks from deep and stalled out half-court sets. While he stayed engaged defensively to salvage some value on that end, the sheer volume of empty possessions dragged down the offense. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint for drivers.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 18.0m -9.3
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
-4.2

Elite table-setting was completely overshadowed by abysmal shot selection and an inability to finish in traffic. He settled for contested, early-clock jumpers that functioned as live-ball turnovers, fueling opponent transition runs. Despite generating high-quality looks for teammates, his own scoring inefficiency actively harmed the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 28.9m -14.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Overcame a clunky shooting night by leaning heavily into his defensive assignments and loose-ball recovery. He acted as the primary disruptor on the perimeter, blowing up dribble hand-offs and fighting through screens to keep his man in front. Those extra-effort plays kept his net impact slightly positive despite the offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 21.9m -11.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Moussa Cisse 13.9m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided functional rim protection and energy in a limited role, contesting shots well at the basket. His activity level on the offensive glass created a few extra possessions, keeping his impact marginally positive. He played strictly within himself, avoiding mistakes while anchoring the backup defense.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 13.9m -7.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Completely neutralized during his short stint, offering zero rim pressure or roll gravity to occupy defenders. His defensive positioning was consistently exploited in the pick-and-roll, bleeding points in the paint via late rotations. The lack of physical presence inside turned his minutes into a clear negative for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -3.0
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 9.2m -4.7
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Defensive tenacity completely salvaged a quiet offensive showing during his brief time on the court. He hounded ball-handlers the length of the floor, disrupting the timing of opposing sets and generating deflections. That point-of-attack pressure was the sole driver keeping his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -57.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 8.3m -4.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Barely left a footprint offensively during a brief rotation stint, failing to generate any downhill pressure. He did manage to stay disciplined on defense, staying attached to shooters to avoid bleeding points. Ultimately, it was a placeholder performance that neither helped nor hurt the overarching game plan.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 7.9m -4.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A completely empty shift where he failed to register any meaningful defensive stops or hustle stats. Forcing a pair of bad shots early in the shot clock disrupted the offensive flow and allowed the defense to reset. He was largely invisible on the floor, resulting in a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 4.7m -2.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0