GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 38.5m
26
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.5

Brutal perimeter efficiency threatened to derail his night, but he compensated by relentlessly attacking the glass and drawing defensive attention. His sheer gravity and secondary hustle plays (+3.9) salvaged possessions that his own errant jumpers had initially broken.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 2/12 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 38.5m -17.8
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Timely weak-side help defense (+4.4 Def) anchored his value during crucial second-half stretches. However, his overall impact was muted by stretches of offensive passivity where he settled for contested jumpers rather than pressuring the rim.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 38.4m -17.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Amen Thompson 37.2m
17
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.4

Reckless drives into congested paint areas resulted in empty possessions that fed directly into opponent transition opportunities. Despite his usual athletic flashes, a complete lack of defensive impact (+0.0 Def) meant he bled points on one end while forcing the issue on the other.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 37.2m -17.2
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Steven Adams 31.3m
8
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Immovable screen-setting and physical post defense (+4.5 Def) established a bruising interior tone. Unfortunately, his heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage allowed opposing guards to consistently turn the corner, dragging his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 31.3m -14.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tari Eason 30.2m
12
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Errant finishing through contact severely depressed his offensive value, as he wasted multiple high-value possessions in the paint. He clawed his way back to a positive rating purely through sheer willpower, generating deflections and blowing up passing lanes (+5.9 Def).

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 30.2m -14.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Tenacious on-ball pressure (+6.2 Def) disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm and defined his rotational minutes. While his scoring volume dipped from recent highs, his disciplined shot selection and active hands kept the second unit stable.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 22.5m -10.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Being a step slow on closeouts (-0.9 Def) surrendered crucial momentum-shifting triples to his assignments. Compounding the defensive struggles, his inability to punish defensive gaps from the perimeter stalled the offense's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 13.8m -6.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence by taking care of the basketball and executing offensive sets without forcing the issue. His disciplined positional defense ensured the opponent couldn't exploit the backup backcourt during his short shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 10.3m -4.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Sluggish rotations in drop coverage allowed easy floaters during his brief time on the hardwood. He failed to establish deep post position or alter shots at his usual rate, rendering his minutes largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 9.3m -4.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

A complete offensive void, he short-circuited multiple sets by hesitating on open looks before ultimately missing them. His trademark energy was noticeably absent, failing to generate the chaotic hustle plays needed to justify his lack of spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 8.6m -4.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 34.2m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Inefficient perimeter shooting severely depressed his overall value, as he bricked five attempts from beyond the arc. The scoring bump from his recent averages was entirely negated by empty possessions and defensive lapses that allowed opponents to capitalize in transition.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 34.2m -15.9
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Booker 32.8m
27
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

High-volume shot creation yielded diminishing returns due to a barrage of contested mid-range misses that fueled opponent runouts. While he produced standard scoring volume, his complete absence on the defensive glass forced the frontcourt into difficult rebounding mismatches.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 32.8m -15.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Royce O'Neale 30.6m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Superb two-way execution defined his night, anchored by a suffocating perimeter defensive effort (+8.0 Def) that repeatedly stalled opposing sets. Offensively, he embraced a pure floor-spacing role by exclusively hunting three-pointers, generating immense gravity that opened up the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 30.6m -14.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Willingness to let it fly from deep stretched the defense, even if the conversion rate was mediocre. Solid point-of-attack pressure (+3.0 Def) and opportunistic rebounding from the guard spot ensured his minutes remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 25.4m -11.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Mark Williams 21.0m
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

A stark drop-off in finishing around the rim limited his offensive ceiling after a highly efficient previous outing. However, relentless activity on the glass and solid rim deterrence kept his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 21.0m -9.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 27.0m
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.9

Dominant interior energy drove a massive overall rating, highlighted by elite screen-setting and constant rim-running. His relentless motor manifested in crucial loose-ball recoveries (+5.6 Hustle) and switchable defense that completely neutralized the opponent's frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.4
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 27.0m -12.5
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Exceptional defensive disruption (+5.0 Def) set the tone during his rotation minutes, blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions. He capitalized on the other end with pristine shot selection, burying wide-open catch-and-shoot looks to maximize his offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 25.5m -11.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.9

Total offensive paralysis tanked his overall rating, as he clanked every perimeter look and failed to pressure the rim. Despite grading out as an elite perimeter stopper (+10.1 Def) who navigated screens flawlessly, the complete lack of scoring gravity crippled the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -7.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +10.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.1m -10.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
Ryan Dunn 16.5m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball resulted in a largely hollow stint. Though he chipped in with timely weak-side rotations (+2.3 Hustle), his inability to generate offensive advantages allowed defenders to cheat off him constantly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 16.5m -7.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A disastrously brief stint was marred by forced, out-of-rhythm attempts near the basket. Defensive miscommunications (-1.2 Def) compounded the empty offensive trips, forcing a quick substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0