GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 36.6m
20
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless downhill attacking and elite positional rebounding drove a highly productive two-way performance. He consistently collapsed the defense with his first step, creating easy dump-offs and kick-outs when he didn't finish himself. This sheer athletic force overcame his lack of perimeter shooting to yield a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 36.6m -20.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Struggles to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. While he provided strong weak-side rim protection and secured defensive rebounds, the offensive spacing issues dragged his overall impact down. Finding consistency on his perimeter stroke remains the key to unlocking his full value.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 34.7m -19.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kevin Durant 31.8m
24
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.2

Masterful orchestration of the offense from the mid-post drove a highly efficient scoring and playmaking performance. By consistently drawing two defenders and making the correct reads, he punished the opposition with surgical precision. This dual-threat capability stabilized the half-court attack and generated high-quality looks for the supporting cast.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.9%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 31.8m -18.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 29.8m
28
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.6

Bullying opposing bigs with an array of post moves fueled a massive statistical and impact footprint. He generated crucial second-chance opportunities through relentless offensive rebounding and sheer physical dominance. This level of sustained, high-efficiency interior scoring completely dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +10.1
Raw total +35.7
Avg player in 29.8m -17.1
Impact +18.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Okogie 26.6m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Generating value purely through disruption, he blew up dribble hand-offs and secured contested long rebounds. Exceptional point-of-attack defense and a relentless motor defined his time on the court, even as his offensive impact lagged. However, his hesitance to shoot allowed the defense to play five-on-four, ultimately resulting in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +7.7
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 26.6m -15.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

A severe drop in scoring aggression neutralized his typical offensive gravity tonight. Despite competing hard defensively and chasing down loose balls, his reluctance to hunt his own shot stalled out several possessions. The resulting lack of offensive pressure allowed the defense to key in on primary scorers, dragging his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 27.8m -15.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Steven Adams 17.8m
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Creating immense separation for ball-handlers, his bone-crushing screens provided a massive physical advantage. He capitalized on dump-off passes with near-perfect efficiency and dominated the offensive glass. This bruising style of play wore down the opposing frontcourt and secured crucial extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 17.8m -10.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

While he capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities, opponents consistently targeted him in isolation to generate easy paint touches. Opportunistic scoring bursts were overshadowed by these defensive vulnerabilities at the point of attack. This defensive bleeding ultimately outweighed his efficient offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 17.0m -9.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Establishing deep post position early in the clock forced the defense to collapse and surrender easy positioning. This highly concentrated burst of rim-running and rebounding maximized his brief time on the floor. His focused, mistake-free execution provided a significant jolt to the second unit's productivity.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +64.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 9.5m -5.4
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Spot minutes at the end of the rotation yielded a perfectly neutral, low-event stint. He executed the defensive scheme without error and capitalized on his lone offensive touch in transition. His brief appearance was primarily about maintaining the status quo while starters rested.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +85.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 4.0m -2.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 2.2m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalizing on a defensive breakdown, his quick trigger on a corner three highlighted a fleeting time on the court. He provided immediate floor spacing and veteran defensive positioning in a situational substitution. This micro-stint successfully injected a quick burst of offense without sacrificing defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +125.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 2.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Marred by a rushed offensive possession and a missed rotation defensively, his very brief appearance was largely forgettable. He struggled to acclimate to the game's pace, resulting in a disjointed offensive set. These minor execution errors in a tiny sample size slightly dinged his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +125.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 37.4m
5
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.5

Missing nearly every perimeter attempt completely tanked his offensive value in this matchup. While he generated significant defensive value and crashed the glass relentlessly, the sheer volume of empty possessions proved too costly. Opposing defenses were able to heavily shade toward primary actions by ignoring him on the outside.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.7%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +6.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 37.4m -21.4
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.1

Brilliant passing flashes were unfortunately offset by erratic shot selection and high-variance decision-making. By launching a barrage of ill-advised attempts from beyond the arc, he routinely bailed out the defense and disrupted the team's rhythm. The negative overall impact directly reflects the hidden cost of those wasted, early-clock possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 28.0m -15.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 22.6m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Despite shooting efficiently from the floor, his overall impact cratered due to a complete lack of playmaking. Operating primarily as a finisher rather than a creator, his inability to generate looks for teammates left the half-court offense stagnant. This sharp drop in offensive usage from his usual baseline ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 22.6m -12.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 18.7m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint neutralized his primary utility tonight. This uncharacteristically passive approach resulted in a glaring lack of scoring gravity. Even though he offered surprisingly competent defensive rotations, his offensive disappearing act severely hindered the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 18.7m -10.6
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Drew Eubanks 10.0m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

During his short stint on the floor, he yielded minimal tangible production on either end. He supplied adequate rim deterrence in drop coverage, but his offensive limitations made him a non-factor in the pick-and-roll. Ultimately, he merely treaded water without moving the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 10.0m -5.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
25
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.8

By consistently exploiting defensive mismatches in the post, he drove a massive positive impact score. Elite finishing efficiency around the basket punished late rotations and stabilized the half-court offense. Sustaining this level of hyper-efficient scoring has transformed him into a highly reliable anchor.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +24.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.0
Raw total +37.3
Avg player in 32.3m -18.5
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Malik Monk 29.7m
25
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.3

When the team needed crucial momentum swings, his lethal shot-making from beyond the arc broke the opposing defense's back. He operated as a dynamic release valve, converting tough, contested jumpers that bailed out stagnant possessions. This scoring explosion provided a massive boost to the overall offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -49.8
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +22.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 29.7m -17.0
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Because of a brutal shooting slump, his offensive contributions were completely derailed. Even though he competed hard on loose balls and stayed engaged defensively, his inability to convert open looks crippled the floor spacing. Opponents actively ignored him on the perimeter, bogging down the half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -36.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 22.8m -12.9
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Keon Ellis 20.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.5

Failing to connect on a single perimeter attempt allowed the defense to completely collapse the paint against primary drivers. This complete offensive invisibility, paired with defensive lapses, resulted in a disastrous stint on the floor. His inability to stay in front of his assignment further compounded the damage, leading to a cratered impact score.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.5
Raw total -4.0
Avg player in 20.0m -11.5
Impact -15.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Strictly adhering to his role as a lob threat and put-back specialist allowed him to maintain a streak of highly efficient shooting. Reliable interior finishing and disciplined defensive positioning resulted in a solid, if unspectacular, net positive impact. By avoiding mistakes and playing within himself, he provided highly effective rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -47.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 18.6m -10.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1