GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 42.4m
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Suffocating perimeter defense and explosive transition play fueled a highly impactful marathon performance. He constantly pressured the rim, drawing fouls and converting efficiently to maintain his recent hot streak. His ability to disrupt passing lanes created easy offense that stabilized the unit.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 42.4m -23.6
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 39.7m
28
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

Heavy isolation volume yielded mixed results, as a barrage of missed triples suppressed his overall efficiency. He commanded constant double-teams, which opened up the floor, but forcing contested midrange looks ate into his net value. Solid defensive rebounding ultimately kept his impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.5%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 39.7m -22.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 36.1m
23
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+3.0

Operating as the central offensive hub, his elite processing speed picked the defense apart from the high post. He consistently generated high-quality looks for cutters, masking a few defensive lapses in drop coverage. Sustaining his highly efficient interior finishing streak anchored the team's half-court attack.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 36.1m -20.2
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 34.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
18
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A lack of secondary playmaking and streaky perimeter shooting resulted in a slightly negative overall grade. He settled for contested spot-ups rather than attacking closeouts, stalling the offense when his jumper wasn't falling. Though his weak-side rim protection was a plus, the empty offensive possessions weighed heavily.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 34.4m -19.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Okogie 12.8m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Relentless point-of-attack defense defined a highly productive short shift. He didn't waste a single offensive touch, finishing his limited opportunities while blowing up multiple opponent actions on the other end. This was a textbook example of maximizing a specialized role to swing momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 12.8m -7.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 24.7m
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.0

Disruptive defensive hands and poised decision-making highlighted a surprising breakout performance off the bench. He controlled the tempo well, avoiding the erratic turnovers that usually plague young guards. Chipping in efficiently when called upon made him a stark positive in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 24.7m -13.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Getting repeatedly targeted on defense severely compromised his time on the floor, leading to a massive negative impact score. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, forcing the defense into constant rotation. A cold shooting night compounded the issue, as he couldn't shoot his way out of the defensive deficit.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.2
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 22.2m -12.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Steven Adams 18.2m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Brick-wall screen setting and immovable post defense provided exactly the physical edge the second unit needed. He deterred drivers simply by occupying space, anchoring a stingy defensive stretch. Even with limited offensive touches, his sheer gravity on the offensive glass generated extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 18.2m -10.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

A brief cameo was enough to provide a quick burst of rim protection and vertical spacing. He executed his pick-and-roll duties flawlessly during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 4.8m -2.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Two forced, missed jumpers in a very short window stalled the offense and resulted in a net negative shift. He brought his usual physical energy, but the lack of offensive polish was immediately apparent.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -77.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 4.6m -2.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
14
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.1

Ironclad defensive positioning kept him viable, but a brutal shooting night severely capped his overall effectiveness. Clanking twelve attempts from the floor, including a blank slate from deep, killed multiple offensive possessions. He anchored the paint well enough, yet the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.4
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 37.1m -20.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 36.6m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Despite a solid scoring rhythm, his overall impact slipped into the red due to perimeter inefficiency and defensive lapses. Missing five shots from beyond the arc stalled offensive momentum during key stretches and allowed the defense to set up. He needs to tighten his shot selection to translate his raw production into winning value.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 36.6m -20.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Smith 36.3m
14
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

A heavy dose of missed three-pointers completely erased the value of his high-energy effort on the glass. Firing blanks from deep allowed the defense to sag, bogging down Chicago's half-court spacing. His excellent hustle metrics simply couldn't salvage a performance defined by poor perimeter execution.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.9
Defense -0.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 36.3m -20.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Jones 27.1m
34
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+22.3

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency drove a massive positive impact score. He punished defensive rotations by hitting nearly everything he threw at the basket, sustaining a blistering shooting streak. Flawless shot selection and steady playmaking completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 11/12 (91.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 109.5%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +33.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 27.1m -15.1
Impact +22.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaac Okoro 24.8m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Perimeter defensive struggles uncharacteristically undermined his floor time tonight. While he generated decent hustle numbers, failing to convert inside the arc and getting beat on assignments yielded a net negative result. The drop-off in finishing efficiency from his recent hot streak was glaring.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense -1.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 24.8m -13.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Surprisingly stout defensive rotations salvaged what was otherwise a mediocre shooting performance. He stayed disciplined on closeouts and fought through screens, adding hidden value that offset his clunky perimeter execution. His willingness to grind defensively ensured he remained a net positive despite the misfires.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 29.2m -16.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 22.7m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Passive offensive involvement led to a muted impact, a sharp regression from his recent aggressive scoring tear. He floated on the perimeter too often, failing to pressure the rim or collapse the defense. A few timely defensive rotations kept him near neutral, but the lack of downhill attacks was noticeable.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 22.7m -12.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.6

Offensive invisibility absolutely tanked his overall rating in this outing. Missing every single shot he took, particularly from the corners, allowed defenders to completely abandon him and clog the paint. Even a few decent weak-side contests couldn't mask the damage of his completely broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -6.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 17.6m -9.8
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

High-energy spot minutes provided a minor but noticeable lift to the second unit. He crashed the glass effectively and stayed connected on defense during his brief run. Making quick decisions rather than forcing action allowed him to be a steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 8.5m -4.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1