GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 45.1m
35
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.1

An overreliance on contested perimeter pull-ups suppressed what could have been a dominant statistical profile. While his mid-range isolation scoring effectively bailed out late-clock situations, defensive lapses in transition prevented his overall impact from matching his massive production.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.6%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.1m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 45.1m -23.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Alperen Sengun 44.6m
30
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.4

A staggering volume of missed bunnies and forced hook shots severely diluted his offensive value. He salvaged a positive rating purely through sheer persistence on the offensive glass (+7.0 Hustle), generating critical second-chance opportunities to mask his inefficient finishing.

Shooting
FG 11/31 (35.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 37.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.6m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 44.6m -23.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
10
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Severe struggles navigating pick-and-roll coverages allowed opponents to relentlessly target him during a disastrous third-quarter run. Even with decent activity on the glass, his inability to stay in front of quicker forwards cratered his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 43.1m -22.3
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Amen Thompson 38.8m
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Reckless drives into heavily populated paint areas resulted in a slew of empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. While his point-of-attack defense remained disruptive, his erratic shot selection completely derailed the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 38.8m -20.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Josh Okogie 21.8m
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Operating as an absolute non-threat offensively allowed the opposing defense to play five-on-four and aggressively trap the ball-handlers. His energetic perimeter defense (+4.8) could not overcome the spacing issues his passivity created on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 1.9%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 21.8m -11.3
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Methodical pacing and sharp off-ball cutting tore apart the opponent's defensive shell. He consistently generated high-quality looks by attacking closeouts with precision, while his active hands in the passing lanes (+4.9 Hustle) fueled several easy fast-break conversions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 28.8m -14.9
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 27.2m
3
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Fumbling interior passes and blowing point-blank layups crippled the team's interior scoring efficiency. Despite using his massive frame to carve out space for put-backs, his inability to convert around the rim turned multiple high-value possessions into empty trips.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 27.2m -14.1
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Crisp decision-making and flawless shot selection provided a massive spark off the bench. He punished defensive sagging by burying timely perimeter looks, capitalizing perfectly on the defensive attention drawn by the starters.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 15.6m -8.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 44.2m
26
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.9

Settling for contested perimeter looks dragged down an otherwise dominant offensive showing. His ability to collapse the defense on hard drives fueled a strong box score impact, but defensive mistimings on the perimeter and forced jumpers limited his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.2m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 44.2m -22.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Franz Wagner 42.8m
29
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Heavy offensive volume yielded mixed results due to a barrage of contested misses at the rim that dragged down his efficiency. However, his relentless off-ball movement and aggressive rebounding in traffic salvaged his overall impact, allowing him to consistently punish defensive mismatches in isolation.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.8m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +7.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 42.8m -22.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Defensive versatility anchored this highly positive performance, as he consistently disrupted passing lanes and deterred drives during critical second-half stretches. While his perimeter stroke was shaky, his selective cutting and high-energy closeouts (+4.6 Hustle) more than compensated for the missed jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.6
Defense +12.4
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 40.4m -20.8
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.4

Imposing interior presence dictated the flow of the game, reflected in a stellar defensive rating (+9.7) generated by altering shots at the rim. He maintained his recent streak of efficient finishing by capitalizing on drop coverage, while his screen-setting created massive driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +6.8
Defense +9.7
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 37.4m -19.4
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 31.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
S Anthony Black 35.8m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc and defensive rotational errors severely tanked his net impact (-5.2). Despite finding some success attacking the paint, his inability to navigate screens allowed opposing guards to generate easy momentum-shifting buckets.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 35.8m -18.5
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jett Howard 19.6m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Clunky offensive execution and forced jumpers short-circuited several possessions, resulting in a slightly negative overall grade. He managed to mitigate the damage through surprisingly sticky perimeter defense against isolation-heavy wings.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 19.6m -10.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 15.6m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Provided sturdy rim protection and timely weak-side rotations during a crucial second-quarter stint to stabilize the second unit. His low-maintenance offensive role allowed him to focus entirely on setting bone-crushing screens and sealing off the glass.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 15.6m -8.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyus Jones 15.3m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

A complete lack of offensive rhythm derailed his stint, as he failed to capitalize on open floaters and stalled the half-court initiation. Opposing defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the paint and compounded his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 15.3m -7.8
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to leave a footprint on the game due to passive positioning and a failure to contest shots at his usual elite level. A lack of offensive aggression allowed his defender to freely roam and disrupt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 13.8m -7.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0