GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 40.0m
39
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+16.9

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
Offense +25.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 40.0m -17.5
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
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
-6.2

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
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 37.6m -16.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
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
-5.6

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
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 35.6m -15.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
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
-7.7

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
Offense -3.2
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 33.0m -14.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
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
+3.9

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
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 32.2m -14.0
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
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
+9.1

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
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 18.7m -8.2
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
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
-5.5

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
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 16.1m -7.0
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
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
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 12.4m -5.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
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
+3.9

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
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 10.7m -4.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 3.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

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
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 3.6m -1.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 40.2m
39
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

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
Offense +19.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 40.2m -17.7
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
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
-6.3

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
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 39.9m -17.6
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
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
+4.8

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
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 35.1m -15.4
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
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
+1.6

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
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 32.5m -14.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
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
-8.5

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
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 26.2m -11.6
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
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
+9.9

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
Offense +19.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 32.0m -14.1
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
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
-8.9

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
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 16.9m -7.4
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
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
-3.0

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
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 10.7m -4.7
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
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

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
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 6.5m -2.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0