GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 34.9m
18
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.7

Exceptional finishing at the rim and suffocating point-of-attack defense drove a highly impactful performance. He lived in the paint, punishing defensive rotations and creating high-value looks for others. His ability to turn defensive stops into instant transition offense was the defining feature of his night.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.5
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 34.9m -21.2
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 30.9m
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.4

A high volume of missed jumpers suppressed what could have been a dominant overall score, as he faced heavy defensive shading all night. He still managed to leverage his gravity to create openings for teammates, and his length disrupted several passing lanes. The reliance on contested midrange pull-ups ultimately dragged down his efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 30.9m -18.7
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite strong defensive metrics, his impact slipped into the red due to misfiring from the perimeter and likely committing costly fouls. He settled for contested jumpers rather than attacking closeouts, stalling the offense. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 29.9m -18.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 27.8m
16
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite playmaking from the elbows and dominance on the glass kept him firmly in the positive despite several missed looks around the basket. He dictated the geometry of the half-court offense, consistently finding cutters with high-level reads. His physical presence inside neutralized the opponent's second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 27.8m -16.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 25.9m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Elite hustle metrics and relentless defensive energy kept his impact positive despite offensive struggles. He generated extra possessions through sheer effort, crashing the glass and diving for loose balls. The offensive limitations were masked by his chaotic, high-motor impact on the margins.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 25.9m -15.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Blistering perimeter shooting fueled a highly efficient offensive showing that drove his positive impact. He punished defenders for going under screens, spacing the floor perfectly for his teammates. His decisive shot selection and quick trigger completely altered the opponent's defensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 24.7m -14.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Tari Eason 20.8m
20
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.8

A massive spike in perimeter efficiency completely broke the game open, driving an elite overall impact score. He capitalized on every open look, punishing the defense for leaving him unattended in the corners. Combined with his usual high-energy hustle, this offensive explosion made him the ultimate x-factor.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 20.8m -12.6
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 16.9m
5
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Bruising screen-setting and positional rebounding anchored his positive contribution in limited minutes. He carved out space in the paint, generating extra possessions and freeing up shooters. Even with a few missed bunnies around the rim, his physical enforcement set the tone.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +61.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 16.9m -10.2
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Poor pick-and-roll defense and an inability to protect the rim resulted in a negative rating despite converting his only look. Opponents easily navigated around him in the paint, exploiting his declining lateral mobility. He was largely a non-factor on the glass, neutralizing his primary value.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 9.9m -5.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive lapses and a lack of overall involvement pushed his impact into the negative during a brief stint. He failed to generate any disruptive events on the perimeter, allowing opponents to operate too comfortably. The low-energy shift offered very little resistance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 8.3m -5.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

A completely empty offensive shift kept his impact hovering just below neutral. He failed to organize the second unit, offering no rim pressure or disruptive defense. It was a forgettable stint defined by passive decision-making.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.4m -1.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
JD Davison 3.4m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Defensive mistakes in garbage time dragged down his rating during a very brief appearance. He knocked down a perimeter shot, but gave the points right back on the other end. A lack of defensive awareness defined his few minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 3.4m -2.0
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 3.4m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Executing a single perimeter look was enough to keep his impact slightly positive in mop-up duty. He provided a veteran presence, avoiding any costly mistakes or turnovers. A quiet, steady shift to close out the game.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 3.4m -2.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 35.7m
16
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite generating excellent defensive and hustle metrics, his overall impact plunged into the negative due to a high volume of empty offensive possessions. Forcing contested looks rather than moving the ball derailed his efficiency. He routinely bailed out the defense by settling for low-percentage jumpers early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 35.7m -21.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Alex Sarr 32.0m
25
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.9

A massive scoring surge fueled a dominant overall rating, as he capitalized on mismatches around the rim to generate high-value looks. His defensive presence anchored the paint, deterring drives and adding significant value on that end. The sheer efficiency of his shot profile made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 32.0m -19.4
Impact +15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 52.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 29.4m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.0

A barrage of missed jumpers completely tanked his overall rating, as he repeatedly settled for contested looks early in the shot clock. The offensive stagnation he caused outweighed any marginal defensive contributions. This was a stark drop-off from his recent scoring form, defined by forced isolation attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 29.4m -17.7
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tre Johnson 27.4m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

While he knocked down his perimeter looks, his overall impact suffered from a lack of secondary playmaking and likely defensive lapses. He operated strictly as a spot-up threat, failing to pressure the rim or create for others. The one-dimensional nature of his performance limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 27.4m -16.5
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.6m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Continuing a recent slump, his inability to convert efficiently dragged his net impact firmly into the red. He struggled to find rhythm in isolation sets, stalling the offensive flow and likely coughing up momentum-killing turnovers. Even solid hustle numbers couldn't offset the dead-end possessions he accumulated.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 22.6m -13.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Cam Whitmore 25.1m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Failing to connect from deep and likely committing momentum-killing turnovers kept his overall rating in the negative. He showed flashes of athleticism in transition, but his tunnel vision in the half-court resulted in forced drives into traffic. Better decision-making on the move is needed to translate his physical tools into positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 25.1m -15.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

A passive offensive approach and an inability to collapse the defense led to a severely depressed impact score. He struggled to dictate the tempo, often picking up his dribble too early against ball pressure. The lack of rim pressure meant he was largely a non-factor in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 19.5m -11.8
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Struggling to find the mark from beyond the arc and offering little resistance on the defensive end resulted in a deeply negative overall score. Opponents actively targeted him on the perimeter, exploiting his lateral quickness. When his outside shot isn't falling, his lack of secondary skills makes him a liability.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 18.6m -11.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Flawless execution around the basket drove a highly efficient stint, maximizing his value in limited minutes. He thrived as a roll man, punishing late rotations with decisive finishes at the rim. This low-mistake, high-conversion approach perfectly suited his role.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 12.5m -7.4
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A sharp decline from his recent production, his brief appearance was marred by missed perimeter assignments and empty offensive trips. He failed to establish any physical presence inside, floating around the arc instead. The lack of hustle stats highlights a low-energy stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 7.3m -4.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Barely registering during his brief time on the floor, his impact hovered near neutral due to a lack of involvement. He failed to generate any defensive events or pressure the rim. It was a purely placeholder shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.4m -2.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Snapping a streak of highly efficient games, he was completely neutralized in his short stint. He couldn't find any gaps in the defense to exploit and offered minimal resistance on the other end. The lack of aggression defined this brief, negative appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 3.4m -2.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 3.4m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Executing his only offensive opportunity kept his impact slightly in the green during a very short run. He stayed within the flow of the offense, avoiding mistakes. A quiet but perfectly adequate garbage-time shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 3.4m -2.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0