GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 32.4m
28
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.3

Surgical shot-making and elite playmaking from the elbows drove a dominant overall rating. He consistently manipulated double-teams to find cutters, while his length disrupted multiple passing lanes on the defensive end. A flawless shooting display from deep punished defenders who dared to go under screens.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +40.1
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 32.4m -16.4
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Amen Thompson 31.8m
31
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.2

Relentless downhill pressure and elite finishing through contact generated a monstrous impact score. He repeatedly collapsed the defense in transition, converting highly contested layups while drawing crucial fouls. Active hands in the passing lanes fueled the fast-break opportunities that defined his dominant performance.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 31.8m -16.0
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Steven Adams 29.9m
4
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

Bruising screen-setting and relentless offensive rebounding fueled a steady, positive impact. He physically overwhelmed his matchup in the paint, generating crucial extra possessions through pure strength. Solid positional defense and active hands in the post further stabilized his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 29.9m -15.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Highly efficient scoring was completely undone by poor defensive positioning and a lack of physicality on the glass. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that erased his offensive contributions. The low hustle metrics highlight a concerning tendency to spectate rather than crash the boards.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +47.7
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 27.6m -14.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 16.4m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Perfect shooting efficiency and chaotic defensive energy maximized his value in a short burst. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm by blowing up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. High-motor transition runs rewarded him with easy fast-break finishes at the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 16.4m -8.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Flawless shooting efficiency and tenacious point-of-attack defense maximized his value off the bench. He completely smothered opposing ball-handlers, generating deflections that ignited transition breaks. Smart, decisive shot selection ensured every offensive touch yielded a positive result.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 128.9%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 29.1m -14.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.9

Errant perimeter shooting suppressed his offensive grade, but sharp defensive instincts kept his overall score above water. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions by fighting over screens and recovering to his man. The playmaking was solid, though forced passes into traffic occasionally stalled the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 20.9m -10.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A surprising burst of perimeter accuracy wasn't enough to offset costly defensive breakdowns in isolation matchups. He generated strong hustle value by diving for loose balls, but repeatedly got blown by on the perimeter. The negative defensive rating reflects his inability to contain dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 19.1m -9.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 18.1m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Elite rim deterrence and disciplined verticality drove a positive defensive impact during his rotation. He effectively neutralized interior drives, forcing opponents to kick out to contested shooters. While his offensive involvement was minimal, his presence as a lob threat kept the defense honest.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 18.1m -9.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
Jeff Green 8.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A lack of offensive aggression and slow defensive rotations resulted in a distinctly negative stint. He struggled to close out on perimeter shooters, consistently arriving a step late to contest. The inability to stretch the floor or protect the rim rendered his minutes highly ineffective.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -78.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 8.2m -4.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 6.5m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Forced drives into heavy traffic and poor decision-making severely damaged his brief time on the floor. He failed to register any hustle plays, looking disconnected from the flow of the offense. The complete lack of scoring or playmaking left a noticeable void in the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 6.5m -3.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 31.1m
23
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Impact was buoyed by sheer scoring volume, but 14 missed shots and forced perimeter looks capped his overall efficiency. Relentless off-ball movement generated a massive +7.8 hustle rating, particularly during a third-quarter surge where he consistently beat his man to loose balls. Defensive lapses on the perimeter ultimately kept his final score grounded.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +7.8
Defense -1.0
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 31.1m -15.8
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc offset the value of his aggressive downhill drives. His inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off, stalling the team's offensive flow during second-unit stints. A lack of disruptive plays on the defensive end further depressed his final rating.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 29.0m -14.6
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Grayson Allen 26.1m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

Severe perimeter shooting regression heavily penalized his overall score, as he forced contested looks early in the shot clock. Despite the offensive struggles, he maintained high energy on the margins by diving for loose balls during a gritty third-quarter stretch. The sheer volume of empty possessions ultimately outweighed those hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -51.8
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 26.1m -13.2
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 19.3m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

A complete offensive disappearing act cratered his net impact, as he passed up open spot-up opportunities and stalled ball movement. He salvaged marginal value through sharp weak-side rotations and active hands in the passing lanes to boost his defensive metrics. However, his inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to completely ignore him in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -49.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 19.3m -9.8
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mark Williams 17.0m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.2

Elite rim-running and disciplined shot selection drove a highly efficient positive impact in limited minutes. He consistently sealed his man deep in the paint during early offense, generating high-percentage looks and drawing crucial fouls. Strong verticality at the rim anchored the defense and deterred multiple drives.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -57.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 17.0m -8.6
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 22.8m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Extreme passivity on offense tanked his overall rating, breaking a five-game streak of highly efficient finishing. He passed up multiple clean looks in the restricted area, leading to late-clock turnovers for his teammates. While his positional defense remained solid, the complete lack of offensive gravity was too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 22.8m -11.5
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Inefficient volume shooting and a string of forced isolations severely damaged his net score. He repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than moving the ball against defensive rotations. Minor lapses in transition defense compounded the negative offensive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 21.9m -11.1
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 18.3m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Defensive dominance completely defined his stint, highlighted by a suffocating stretch of point-of-attack coverage in the second quarter. He generated immense value through deflections and perfectly timed weak-side rotations, entirely masking his low-usage offensive role. Elite hustle metrics reflect his constant motor in tracking down long rebounds.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.9
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 18.3m -9.2
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.8

A massive scoring surge driven by decisive rim attacks and confident perimeter shooting skyrocketed his box metrics. He repeatedly exploited drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, punishing retreating bigs with quick-trigger pull-ups. This unexpected offensive explosion completely tilted the game's momentum during the middle frames.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 18.2m -9.3
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Missed opportunities on spot-up attempts kept his impact in the red during a brief rotation stint. He provided decent resistance on the block against bigger matchups, preventing easy entry passes. Ultimately, the lack of offensive output or playmaking limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 14.6m -7.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Elite rim protection and timely defensive rotations salvaged a positive score despite an abysmal shooting night. He completely shut off the baseline during a crucial fourth-quarter stretch, forcing multiple shot-clock violations. The perimeter misses hurt, but his defensive anchoring proved far more consequential.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +78.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +6.6
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 8.2m -4.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A low-impact shift was characterized by an inability to establish deep post position or alter shots at the rim. He struggled to navigate screens in drop coverage, allowing opposing guards too much daylight. The minimal hustle stats reflect a lack of urgency on the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +78.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 8.2m -4.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A quiet, low-usage stint yielded a neutral impact, as he mostly blended into the background of the half-court offense. He managed to secure a few contested boards in traffic but failed to make his presence felt as a roll man. The lack of defensive playmaking kept his overall score flat.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +55.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0