GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
32
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.4

Lethal perimeter shot-making broke the opposing defensive scheme, fueling a massive spike in overall impact. His ability to stretch the floor from the frontcourt opened driving lanes for everyone else while he held his own in isolation defense.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +24.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 41.3m -23.6
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Amen Thompson 40.1m
20
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.3

Relentless downhill attacking and elite finishing at the rim anchored a highly productive performance. His physical point-of-attack defense disrupted the opposing backcourt, turning deflections into easy transition buckets.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 40.1m -22.9
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 36.1m
18
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.1

A brutal perimeter shooting slump completely tanked his offensive value, stalling out half-court sets. The sheer volume of clanked jumpers allowed the defense to leak out in transition, severely punishing his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 36.1m -20.7
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 33.0m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

Masterful orchestration from the high post and elite defensive positioning drove a dominant two-way rating. He consistently punished switches in the paint and generated extra possessions through relentless interior hustle.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +11.4
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 33.0m -18.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 4
S Steven Adams 27.4m
5
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Heavy lifting on the glass was entirely offset by the pace of the game passing him by in transition. While he set bruising screens, his lack of mobility against smaller lineups resulted in a marginally negative net score.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 27.4m -15.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 48.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Struggling to navigate physical perimeter defense, his offensive rhythm was thoroughly disrupted. The inability to create separation or dictate the tempo resulted in empty possessions that dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -37.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 17.6m -10.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Okogie 16.9m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Negative defensive metrics and a lack of offensive gravity made him a liability during his rotation minutes. Opponents freely sagged off him on the perimeter, clogging the paint and stalling out the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 16.9m -9.7
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite a rare uptick in shooting efficiency, his lack of secondary playmaking and low hustle metrics kept his rating in the red. He was frequently caught out of position on closeouts, bleeding value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 15.9m -9.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Cardio minutes defined his brief stint, as he failed to register a single meaningful hustle or defensive play. The complete lack of statistical footprint in over seven minutes left his team playing essentially four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 7.6m -4.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 4.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Rushed offensive decisions led to forced perimeter shots that derailed his short stint. While he provided a minor defensive spark, the empty offensive trips kept his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 35.2m
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

High-volume floor spacing kept the defense stretched, though a few empty possessions from deep prevented a higher net score. His length on the perimeter disrupted passing lanes, stabilizing his value when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 35.2m -20.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 30.4m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.5

Consistent interior bullying kept his baseline impact positive, though a slight dip in his usual elite finishing efficiency capped his ceiling. His ability to collapse the paint created secondary actions and open looks for teammates, stabilizing the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 30.4m -17.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Saddiq Bey 29.2m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Offensive passivity limited his value, as he failed to generate his usual rim pressure or perimeter gravity. Despite decent defensive metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to a sharp drop in scoring volume compared to his recent stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 29.2m -16.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Derik Queen 26.6m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

A massive surge in offensive confidence fueled a positive rating, completely reversing his recent shooting slumps. Active defensive rotations and opportunistic scoring around the basket defined a highly productive rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -56.6
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 26.6m -15.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jeremiah Fears 10.4m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

An abysmal shooting night cratered his overall impact, completely stalling the offense during his minutes. Unable to find his usual rhythm, his forced attempts against set defenses resulted in empty trips that heavily outweighed minor hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 10.4m -5.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Yves Missi 30.4m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.2

Elite rim protection and high-energy rim-running skyrocketed his impact score to the top of the roster. He completely dominated the restricted area, translating defensive stops directly into high-percentage transition looks.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.2
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 30.4m -17.3
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jordan Poole 25.2m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Severe defensive lapses and a lack of secondary hustle plays dragged his rating deep into the red. Even with an uptick in scoring efficiency, his poor shot selection in critical moments derailed offensive momentum and allowed opponent runs.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 25.2m -14.4
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Micah Peavy 22.0m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.4

Opportunistic cutting and a sudden burst of offensive efficiency provided a much-needed spark off the bench. Solid positional defense ensured he was a net positive, making the absolute most of his limited touches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 22.0m -12.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Barely making a dent in the hustle categories, his low-usage profile left him vulnerable to negative lineup fluctuations. While he didn't miss a shot, his inability to alter shots or command defensive attention led to a poor net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 17.6m -10.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Defensive tenacity completely salvaged a rough shooting night, generating a strong positive impact through sheer disruption. He chased shooters relentlessly off screens, proving his value extends far beyond perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.1
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 12.8m -7.3
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2