GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.6m
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Wild, out-of-control drives into heavy traffic ruined his offensive rhythm and broke a strong streak of efficient play. He continued to generate havoc defensively with his elite closing speed, but the sheer number of blown layups heavily penalized his bottom line.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 39.6m -22.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 36.8m
19
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

A brutal night of forcing contested mid-range jumpers against double-teams completely tanked his offensive efficiency. Surprisingly, his weak-side rim protection and length in the passing lanes were phenomenal, nearly offsetting the damage from the abysmal shooting display.

Shooting
FG 7/23 (30.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +12.0
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 36.8m -20.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Poor shot selection inside the arc and an inability to finish through contact severely dragged down his overall rating. He anchored the defense well with timely switches onto smaller guards, but the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved insurmountable.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 33.6m -18.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Alperen Sengun 32.5m
14
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.9

Stagnant post-ups and a failure to convert high-percentage looks around the basket snapped his recent streak of elite efficiency. While he battled admirably on the interior to generate extra possessions, the offensive friction he caused in the half-court ultimately resulted in a negative net score.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 32.5m -18.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Josh Okogie 22.0m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Relentless crashing on the offensive glass and chaotic defensive energy salvaged a positive impact score despite clunky finishing. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter made him a highly disruptive force in a specialized role.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 22.0m -12.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Steven Adams 25.0m
6
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Bruising screen-setting and immovable post defense dictated the physical tone of the game, resulting in a highly positive impact. By consistently neutralizing the opponent's primary rim protector, he created massive driving lanes that didn't show up in his own counting stats.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 25.0m -13.9
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
JD Davison 20.5m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

Disastrous decision-making and a barrage of ill-advised perimeter shots created a massive crater in the team's offensive flow. Opponents actively hunted him in isolation, compounding his offensive woes with a porous point-of-attack defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 20.5m -11.6
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Hesitancy against aggressive closeouts led to forced, late-clock attempts that severely damaged his offensive rating. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 19.4m -10.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A fleeting rotation stint offered little opportunity to build rhythm, resulting in a mostly neutral statistical footprint. He executed his defensive assignments adequately but failed to generate any meaningful disruption.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Complete offensive invisibility and a failure to initiate sets quickly led to a negative score in limited action. Opposing guards easily bypassed his initial pressure, forcing the backline into difficult rotation scenarios.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 3.5m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Capitalizing immediately on a blown coverage from the corner provided a quick jolt of positive value. His veteran positioning on the defensive end prevented any easy interior looks during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 3.5m -2.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

Impact dipped due to uncharacteristic passivity, as he frequently deferred rather than attacking his primary matchup. While his on-ball defensive pressure remained elite, the offense stagnated during stretches where he refused to force the issue.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 32.6m -18.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Jalen Williams 31.3m
6
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-5.4

Severe struggles finishing at the rim tanked his overall rating, as forced drives into traffic led to empty possessions. He managed to salvage some value through exceptional defensive rotations and high-level playmaking, but the sheer volume of contested misses proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 31.3m -17.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 28.8m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.8

Total dominance in the paint anchored a massive overall rating, combining elite shot-alteration with flawless rim-running. His ability to space the floor on pick-and-pops completely fractured the opposing defensive scheme, resulting in a wildly efficient offensive night.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +6.0
Defense +10.1
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 28.8m -16.3
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 20.8m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

A highly efficient perimeter shooting display drove his positive offensive impact, punishing defenders who sagged off him in the half-court. His aggressive closeouts and off-ball tracking generated solid hustle metrics, ensuring his two-way value remained intact despite limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 20.8m -11.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Aaron Wiggins 19.1m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Cold perimeter shooting derailed his offensive rhythm, breaking a recent streak of highly efficient outings. Despite the scoring drought, relentless ball-denial on the wing and active hands in passing lanes kept his defensive metrics firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 19.1m -10.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.0

Slicing through drop coverage with precision floaters and decisive perimeter strikes drove a massive offensive surge. His opportunistic help defense further padded the impact score, making him the defining catalyst of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 22.9m -12.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Smothering screen navigation and flawless defensive positioning fueled a stellar two-way performance. He capitalized on broken plays with timely baseline cuts, proving that low-usage efficiency can yield a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +10.1
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 22.3m -12.5
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Alex Caruso 18.4m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite point-of-attack defense and constant disruptive energy defined this stint, completely neutralizing the opposing backcourt. The offensive output was marred by clunky spot-up attempts, yet his sheer volume of deflections and loose-ball recoveries easily outweighed the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 18.4m -10.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A lack of physical presence at the point of attack dragged down his net rating during his rotation minutes. He executed well in the pick-and-roll on offense, but failing to secure crucial weak-side blockouts allowed opponents to capitalize on second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 16.0m -8.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Settling for contested looks from beyond the arc undermined what was otherwise a bounce-back scoring night. His inability to generate meaningful hustle plays or secure 50/50 balls left his overall rating in the negative despite respectable positional defense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 14.4m -8.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 7.6m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Quick-trigger spacing in transition forced the defense to stretch, creating valuable gravity during his brief stint. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, capitalizing on open corner looks kept his brief rotation solidly in the black.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 7.6m -4.2
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Rushed attempts early in the shot clock resulted in empty trips during a very brief cameo. He managed to stay attached on the perimeter defensively, but the lack of offensive rhythm prevented any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Garbage-time minutes were defined entirely by staying disciplined within the defensive shell. He offered zero offensive usage but managed a slightly positive score simply by avoiding mistakes and executing proper closeouts.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 2.8m -1.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0