Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
HOU lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
HOU 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 164 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Randle 14/25 +3.5
McDaniels 5/14 -3.4
Reid Hard 8/11 +12.3
DiVincenzo Hard 3/10 -2.6
Conley Hard 2/8 -2.6
Gobert Open 4/7 -0.4
Hyland Hard 1/4 -1.8
Beringer Open 0/1 -1.2

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Sengun 11/22 -2.4
Durant Hard 11/18 +11.4
Thompson 5/12 -2.2
Smith Jr. 3/12 -5.5
Sheppard Hard 5/9 +6.1
Okogie 0/4 -4.6
Tate Open 2/2 +1.4
Capela Open 2/2 +1.2
Davison Hard 0/2 -2.0
Finney-Smith Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
HOU
37/80 Field Goals 39/84
46.2% Field Goal % 46.4%
11/30 3-Pointers 12/28
36.7% 3-Point % 42.9%
20/35 Free Throws 20/34
57.1% Free Throw % 58.8%
55.0% True Shooting % 55.6%
63 Total Rebounds 56
12 Offensive 10
33 Defensive 32
21 Assists 19
1.31 Assist/TO Ratio 1.36
14 Turnovers 12
7 Steals 10
7 Blocks 5
27 Fouls 23
42 Points in Paint 50
25 Fast Break Pts 16
16 Points off TOs 22
11 Second Chance Pts 17
27 Bench Points 22
12 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kevin Durant
39 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 40.0 MIN
+29.5
2
Naz Reid
25 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 32.0 MIN
+22.47
3
Julius Randle
39 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 40.2 MIN
+18.46
4
Reed Sheppard
14 PTS · 0 REB · 2 AST · 18.7 MIN
+14.78
5
Jaden McDaniels
15 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 35.1 MIN
+13.62
6
Alperen Sengun
25 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 32.2 MIN
+10.74
7
Jae'Sean Tate
4 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 10.7 MIN
+7.63
8
Rudy Gobert
10 PTS · 13 REB · 1 AST · 32.4 MIN
+7.62
9
Amen Thompson
14 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 35.6 MIN
+7.35
10
Clint Capela
4 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 12.5 MIN
+6.2
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–110
Q4 0:00 MIN Heave 105–110
Q4 0:01 J. Smith Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 105–110
Q4 0:01 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–109
Q4 0:01 MISS J. Smith Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 105–109
Q4 0:01 J. McDaniels take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Smith Jr. 2 FT) 105–109
Q4 0:03 J. Randle driving DUNK (39 PTS) (N. Reid 4 AST) 105–109
Q4 0:05 A. Thompson bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 103–109
Q4 0:14 J. Tate REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 103–109
Q4 0:17 MISS D. DiVincenzo 26' 3PT 103–109
Q4 0:22 K. Durant Free Throw 2 of 2 (39 PTS) 103–109
Q4 0:22 K. Durant Free Throw 1 of 2 (38 PTS) 103–108
Q4 0:22 D. DiVincenzo personal FOUL (4 PF) (Durant 2 FT) 103–107
Q4 0:38 J. Tate STEAL (1 STL) 103–107
Q4 0:38 J. Randle lost ball TURNOVER (5 TO) 103–107

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 40.0m
39
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+33.9

Lethal shot-making from the mid-range and beyond the arc completely dismantled the opposing defensive scheme. He paired this offensive masterclass with highly engaged weak-side rim protection (+5.0) and active closeouts. The sheer gravity of his isolation touches created wide-open driving lanes for teammates, driving a monstrous overall rating.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 80.7%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Scoring +32.8
Creation +5.1
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Bricked open looks and forced contested jumpers severely hampered the team's offensive flow, dropping his efficiency well below his recent averages. While he provided excellent switchability and weak-side help on defense (+5.5), the sheer volume of empty offensive trips dragged his rating into the red. His inability to punish smaller defenders in the post was a glaring missed opportunity.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Amen Thompson 35.6m
14
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.6

Reckless drives into traffic and poor finishing at the rim derailed what could have been a productive slashing performance. Despite utilizing his elite athleticism to generate defensive stops (+3.6), his half-court decision-making stalled multiple possessions. The lack of a reliable perimeter jumper allowed the defense to pack the paint, neutralizing his primary avenues of attack.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +8.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Okogie 33.0m
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Incredible hustle (+6.9) and relentless point-of-attack defense simply could not overcome his status as a complete offensive zero. Opposing defenses aggressively sagged off him, completely muddying the spacing for the primary creators. The inability to convert even a single field goal attempt in heavy minutes proved mathematically devastating to his bottom line.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 32.2m
25
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.7

Masterful footwork in the low post allowed him to consistently generate high-quality looks, maintaining his streak of highly efficient interior scoring. He anchored the paint on both ends, utilizing his size to swallow up loose balls and alter shots at the rim (+5.0). A few defensive miscommunications in pick-and-roll coverage slightly suppressed what was otherwise a dominant interior showing.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/9 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +17.8
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Scintillating off-ball movement and elite shot preparation resulted in a barrage of momentum-shifting triples. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications, punishing late closeouts with extreme prejudice to supercharge the second unit's offense. Surprisingly stout positional defense (+4.1) ensured he gave nothing back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

Total offensive invisibility plagued his rotation minutes, continuing a brutal stretch of perimeter inefficiency. He passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to cheat heavily toward the strong side. While his defensive rotations were passable (+2.0), his failure to stretch the floor crippled the lineup's scoring potential.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 12.4m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Flawless execution of his role as a vertical spacer and rim protector maximized his limited floor time. He set punishing screens to free up the guards and immediately deterred drivers on the opposite end (+4.8). This hyper-efficient, mistake-free stint swung the momentum heavily in his team's favor during the reserve minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Gritty interior finishes and timely cuts to the basket provided a highly efficient spark off the bench. He exploited sleeping defenders along the baseline, converting his limited touches into guaranteed points. His physical brand of basketball perfectly disrupted the opponent's rhythm during a crucial transition period in the game.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 3.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

A rushed, erratic stint featured forced perimeter attempts that immediately resulted in transition opportunities going the other way. He failed to organize the second unit during his brief time on the floor, looking overwhelmed by the defensive pressure. The quick hook from the coaching staff reflected the immediate negative swing he caused.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 40.2m
39
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.8

An overwhelming offensive barrage anchored his value, as he consistently bullied his way to high-percentage looks in the paint. However, a lack of secondary contributions and minimal defensive resistance (+1.3) capped his overall ceiling. The sheer volume of successful isolation possessions was the sole engine behind his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Scoring +29.8
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
8
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.7

A barrage of clanked perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive rating, continuing a concerning trend of inefficient shot selection. While he worked hard to navigate screens and provide point-of-attack defense (+5.7), the empty offensive trips were too costly. His inability to punish closeouts ultimately cratered his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +9.2
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 35.1m
15
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Defensive versatility and active hands in the passing lanes drove his positive impact despite a noticeable dip in shooting efficiency. He generated extra possessions through consistent hustle plays (+3.5) that offset the bricked perimeter looks. His ability to disrupt the opponent's primary actions kept his overall value comfortably in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense +1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 32.5m
10
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.3

Elite rim deterrence and vertical spacing defined his evening, anchoring the team's defensive rating with a massive +7.8 defensive impact score. He dominated the glass and altered countless drives, though a lack of offensive touches kept his aggregate score modest. His physical screening and rotational discipline were essential to neutralizing the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/10 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +13.6
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Mike Conley 26.2m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Offensive stagnation plagued his minutes, characterized by forced perimeter looks and an inability to collapse the defense. He struggled to dictate the tempo in the half-court, leading to empty trips that allowed the opposition to build momentum. Even a respectable effort fighting over screens couldn't salvage a highly detrimental offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 32.0m
25
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.1

Blistering perimeter efficiency broke the game open, as he consistently punished drop coverage with decisive pick-and-pop execution. This massive leap in shot-making quality from his recent slump forced defensive rotations into chaos. He supplemented the offensive fireworks with solid rotational defense to cement a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.7%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +22.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Bones Hyland 16.9m
2
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.9

Errant decision-making and defensive lapses created a massive negative swing during his brief rotation minutes. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, exploiting his slight frame for easy blow-bys. The playmaking flashes were completely overshadowed by defensive bleeding and a total lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 10.7m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Complete offensive passivity rendered his floor time a net negative, as opponents freely ignored him to overload the strong side. He failed to register a single shot attempt, severely cramping the team's half-court spacing. A few minor rotational mistakes on the other end compounded the issue during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

Garbage-time minutes yielded little tangible value, marked by a lack of involvement in the primary offensive actions. He was largely a spectator on the perimeter, failing to leverage his physical tools to create advantages. The brief appearance was too short to establish rhythm but still resulted in a slight negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0