GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 37.4m
20
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.2

Relentless rim pressure and highly efficient finishing sustained his hot streak and generated a massive baseline advantage (+20.5). He paired this offensive engine with disruptive perimeter defense (+5.2) to thoroughly control the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 37.4m -22.7
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
21
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite an uptick in scoring efficiency compared to recent games, hidden negative plays and likely turnover costs undercut his strong baseline. Excellent defensive metrics (+5.9) weren't quite enough to pull his overall impact out of the red.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 33.9m -20.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 33.7m
30
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.9

Masterful shot selection and surgical mid-range execution drove an overwhelmingly dominant offensive rating. He amplified this scoring clinic with high-level defensive engagement (+6.1), cementing his status as the primary catalyst for the team's success.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 33.7m -20.5
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tari Eason 28.6m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Improved shot selection boosted his baseline efficiency, but off-ball mistakes and likely foul costs eroded his overall value. Even with solid defensive contributions, those hidden errors resulted in a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 28.6m -17.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Steven Adams 22.3m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Strong hustle plays (+3.2) and efficient interior finishing were overshadowed by defensive limitations that allowed opponents to capitalize. His inability to anchor the paint effectively dragged down what was otherwise a solid offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.3m -13.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+6.3) salvaged his impact on a night where his perimeter shot wasn't falling. His willingness to do the dirty work and maintain defensive integrity (+3.9) kept his overall rating positive despite the scoring dip.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 24.2m -14.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

A surprising surge in shooting efficiency was completely negated by severe defensive breakdowns and hidden negative plays. The drastic -6.2 total impact indicates he was likely targeted and exploited on the defensive end whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 16.3m -10.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Clint Capela 13.3m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

A massive spike in offensive involvement breathed life into his interior game. He capitalized on his touches with high efficiency, providing a sudden and highly positive jolt to the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 13.3m -8.1
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 12.8m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite a slight uptick in his usually dormant scoring, his overall presence was a net negative due to off-ball mistakes. The lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him, stalling the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 12.8m -7.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Complete absence of hustle plays and flat defensive metrics rendered him a liability during his brief shift. Poor shot selection further compounded his struggles, resulting in a steep negative impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -68.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 8.9m -5.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A totally empty offensive shift cratered his value, as he failed to generate any positive momentum. Without any defensive or hustle stats to fall back on, his minutes were a straight negative for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -155.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 2.4m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Maximized a garbage-time cameo by drawing fouls and playing fundamentally sound defense (+1.6). His ability to impact the game without attempting a field goal showcased high-IQ situational awareness.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 2.4m -1.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jeff Green 2.4m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Breaking a recent scoring drought with a single efficient touch wasn't enough to generate a positive rating. His overall lack of activity in a tiny window left him as a slight net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 2.4m -1.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 31.2m
23
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Continuing his steady scoring trend, his offensive production was robust but offset by hidden negative plays that flattened his total impact. Strong defensive positioning (+4.1) helped salvage a marginally positive rating on a night where his baseline scoring masked some underlying inefficiencies.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 31.2m -19.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 29.3m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

A severe drop-off in scoring efficiency completely tanked his offensive value. Even an outstanding defensive effort (+7.0) and high-energy hustle couldn't rescue his net impact from the damage done by forced shots and clanked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 29.3m -17.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Elite hustle plays (+4.8) and capable perimeter shot-making fueled a strong baseline rating. However, defensive lapses (-0.7) ate into those offensive gains, leaving him with only a marginally positive overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 25.6m -15.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Johnny Furphy 20.4m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Excellent shot selection maximized his offensive touches, keeping his baseline impact highly positive. A strong motor translated to excellent hustle metrics (+3.5), allowing him to maintain a net positive rating despite limited overall volume.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 20.4m -12.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 18.6m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A dip in his typical shooting efficiency dragged down his overall offensive utility. Despite decent defensive metrics, the missed shots and inability to convert looks inside resulted in a distinctly negative total impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -71.9
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 18.6m -11.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Blistering perimeter efficiency heavily tilted the math in his favor, punishing defensive rotations. He paired this elite shot selection with steady defensive execution to cement a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 23.7m -14.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Sustaining a phenomenal streak of high-efficiency shooting, he maximized every touch to drive a stellar baseline rating. Coupled with stifling defensive awareness (+5.2), his two-way execution firmly dictated the positive flow of the game during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 23.6m -14.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 17.5m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Exceptional defensive metrics (+5.4) kept him afloat despite a significant drop in his offensive aggression. His reluctance to hunt his own shot halved his usual production, resulting in a nearly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.4
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 17.5m -10.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

An uncharacteristic breakdown in finishing completely derailed his usual offensive rhythm, snapping a hot streak of hyper-efficient games. While his trademark hustle and defensive pressure remained intact, the missed bunnies at the rim ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 16.1m -9.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 12.2m
3
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.6

A drastic reduction in his usual scoring volume severely limited his offensive utility. Poor defensive rotations (-1.2) further magnified his struggles, leading to a notably negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +73.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 12.2m -7.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tony Bradley 10.7m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Complete offensive invisibility left him as a liability during his brief stint on the floor. Without any scoring gravity to occupy defenders, his negative defensive positioning compounded the damage, resulting in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 10.7m -6.5
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Flawless shot execution in a tiny window of playing time generated a massive localized impact. He capitalized on every single touch, continuing his streak of hyper-efficient scoring to instantly swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +155.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Perfect perimeter shooting completely reversed his recent efficiency struggles, maximizing his value in a brief cameo. Strong defensive positioning (+3.0) compounded the damage he inflicted from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +155.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

A near-total lack of offensive involvement rendered him mostly invisible during his minutes. Minor defensive missteps were enough to drag his low-volume shift into slightly negative territory.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +155.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0