GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 33.4m
13
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.6

Reckless drives into heavily populated paint areas resulted in a cascade of live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. While his raw athleticism flashed on defensive recoveries, his erratic decision-making as a primary initiator completely derailed the offensive rhythm. Defenses sagged off him aggressively, daring him to shoot and effectively neutralizing his elite first step.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 33.4m -20.2
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 28.7m
30
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.3

Surgical precision from the mid-range and an unguardable release point completely dismantled the opposing defensive scheme. He methodically picked apart double-teams, delivering pinpoint passes to cutters when the defense overcommitted to his scoring threat. A dominant third-quarter takeover, where he scored on four consecutive isolation sets, firmly put the game out of reach.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 28.7m -17.4
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Crisp floor spacing and decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics opened up massive driving lanes for the primary ball handlers. He complemented his offensive efficiency with disciplined weak-side rotations, frequently blowing up lob attempts at the rim. His ability to seamlessly switch onto quicker guards on the perimeter was the linchpin of the team's defensive success.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 26.1m -15.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Steven Adams 22.2m
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Bone-crushing screens and immovable post defense dictated the physical terms of engagement in the half-court. Despite his profound impact on defensive structure, a handful of costly offensive fouls and fumbled interior passes suppressed his overall net rating. His sheer gravitational pull on the offensive glass consistently warped the opponent's rebounding scheme.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +55.9
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +8.1
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 22.2m -13.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tari Eason 21.1m
9
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Chaotic defensive energy and a relentless motor on 50/50 balls generated critical extra possessions. He thrived as an absolute menace in the passing lanes, though occasional gambling for steals left the backline exposed. A series of high-effort offensive rebounds in the second half perfectly encapsulated his gritty, momentum-shifting role.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 21.1m -12.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+14.5

Masterful point-of-attack defense and preternatural anticipation in the passing lanes fueled a spectacular two-way masterclass. He consistently turned defensive deflections into immediate transition scoring opportunities, pushing the pace with elite vision. His fearless pull-up shooting against drop coverage forced opposing bigs to step out, completely fracturing their defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +14.0
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 32.1m -19.3
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
Clint Capela 18.1m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Intimidating rim protection and disciplined verticality consistently forced slashers to alter their trajectories in the paint. He struggled to finish cleanly through contact on the other end, leaving several easy points on the board. However, his sheer presence as a lob threat commanded constant attention, subtly opening up driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 18.1m -11.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Textbook positional defense and flawless switchability across multiple positions anchored the second unit's defensive success. He sacrificed his own offensive rhythm to focus entirely on neutralizing the opponent's primary wing threat. Even with a cold shooting stroke, his veteran communication and timely weak-side digs provided immense hidden value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +52.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.1
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 16.0m -9.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Lethargic perimeter navigation allowed opposing guards to easily turn the corner and compromise the defensive shell. He compounded his defensive struggles by stalling the ball on offense, frequently settling for contested, late-clock heaves. A complete inability to penetrate the initial layer of defense rendered his minutes highly unproductive.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -47.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 13.3m -8.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 13.2m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Surprisingly efficient perimeter shooting provided a brief offensive jolt, but his defensive lapses quickly erased those gains. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and struggled to navigate off-ball screens. The scoring efficiency was ultimately a mirage, masking a series of costly rotational errors that bled points.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 13.2m -8.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Operating strictly as a defensive specialist, he utilized his sturdy frame to disrupt post entries and deny middle drives. His complete lack of offensive involvement allowed defenders to freely roam and clog the paint. A brief but physical stint of ball-denial defense on the wing defined his marginal positive impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -76.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 6.5m -4.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jeff Green 4.8m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Trigger-happy shot selection in a very limited window resulted in several empty possessions that disrupted the offensive flow. He managed to salvage a neutral impact by executing a crucial defensive switch that blew up a late-clock action. His veteran savvy in defensive positioning barely offset the erratic offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 4.8m -2.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 4.8m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Frantic pacing and a lack of control led to immediate organizational chaos during his brief time on the floor. He was easily bullied off his spots defensively, allowing straight-line drives to the rim with zero resistance. A costly unforced turnover in transition highlighted a stint defined by a lack of poise.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -90.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 4.8m -2.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.2

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense and active hands in the passing lanes masked a highly inefficient scoring night. He settled for forced, contested mid-range pull-ups against set defenses, which severely dragged down his offensive efficiency. A crucial stretch of lockdown isolation defense in the third quarter ultimately kept his net impact hovering just above water.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.9%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +8.4
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 30.4m -18.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sam Merrill 25.4m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

High-efficiency perimeter shooting and constant off-ball motion generated a strong offensive baseline, yet his overall impact flatlined near neutral. The value of his floor spacing was entirely negated by costly defensive miscommunications and poorly timed live-ball turnovers in transition. His gravity around screens remains potent, but he must tighten up his ball security to yield a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 25.4m -15.3
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Darius Garland 24.4m
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Playmaking duties suffered as he repeatedly forced passes into congested lanes, resulting in momentum-killing turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. While his individual shot creation remained efficient, his inability to organize the half-court offense cratered his overall impact. Opposing guards consistently targeted his slight frame in pick-and-roll actions, forcing defensive rotations that left shooters open.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -65.3
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 24.4m -14.7
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 17.6m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

A stark drop in offensive volume didn't prevent him from anchoring the interior with elite verticality and disciplined drop coverage. He generated significant value through high-activity hustle plays, consistently keeping possessions alive with timely tip-outs on the glass. His willingness to sacrifice touches to focus purely on screening and rim deterrence set a physical tone for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 17.6m -10.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dean Wade 17.5m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Despite providing solid weak-side rim protection that anchored the second-unit defense, his overall impact slipped into the red. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock stalled the offensive flow and led to empty possessions. He needs to leverage his size advantage inside rather than exclusively floating on the arc.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 17.5m -10.6
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 29.6m
23
pts
15
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.8

Relentless positioning on the glass and a knack for finishing through contact drove a highly productive two-way performance. He consistently bullied smaller matchups in the paint, generating crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's defensive spirit. Even with a handful of forced perimeter jumpers, his sheer physical dominance around the rim dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 29.6m -17.9
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.1

An abysmal shooting performance completely derailed his night, as he repeatedly clanked open catch-and-shoot looks from the corners. He tried to salvage his value with relentless effort on loose balls, but the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome. The opponent blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, completely ruining the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -60.4
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 20.3m -12.3
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Evan Mobley 20.1m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Elite rim deterrence and flawless pick-and-roll coverages were entirely overshadowed by a disastrous offensive showing. He routinely short-armed push shots in the paint and struggled to establish deep post position against physical coverage. The inability to capitalize on mismatch opportunities in the post completely stalled the offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 20.1m -12.2
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Lonzo Ball 18.3m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Exceptional off-ball defensive instincts and crisp closeouts provided a strong baseline, but his complete lack of offensive aggression severely handicapped the unit. Operating as a passive bystander on the perimeter allowed defenders to freely double-team the primary ball handlers. His reluctance to attack closeouts or initiate early offense resulted in stagnant, late-clock situations.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 18.3m -11.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Poor decision-making in transition and a tendency to over-dribble into traffic resulted in costly empty possessions. His lack of burst off the bounce allowed defenders to easily stay in front of him, neutralizing his ability to collapse the defense. A brutal stretch of consecutive unforced errors in the second quarter permanently tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 17.2m -10.4
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Immediate energy off the bench and aggressive rim-running forced the opposing frontcourt onto their heels. He maximized his brief stint by sealing defenders early in the shot clock and establishing a physical presence inside. While his perimeter touch was absent, his commitment to doing the dirty work in the restricted area provided a massive spark.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +41.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 12.0m -7.3
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Flawless shot selection and decisive attacks off the catch allowed him to maximize a very brief rotation stint. He instantly punished defensive miscommunications by decisively attacking closeouts and finding the open man. This hyper-efficient offensive burst perfectly stabilized the second unit during a crucial transition period.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +92.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 7.2m -4.4
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0