GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.2

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, floating aimlessly around the perimeter instead of demanding the ball. His inability to establish deep post position or punish mismatches resulted in a catastrophic overall rating. Even with decent defensive metrics, his passive approach stalled the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 37.0m -19.7
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 36.2m
24
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.9

High-volume isolation scoring inflated his baseline metrics, but defensive apathy dragged his overall impact into the negative. Opponents repeatedly targeted his lack of lateral quickness on switches, bleeding points at the point of attack. The offensive heavy lifting couldn't compensate for a glaring lack of weak-side help.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 36.2m -19.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 35.9m
25
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.3

Relentless downhill attacks and suffocating point-of-attack defense resulted in a dominant, game-altering rating. He completely neutralized his primary matchup while simultaneously collapsing the paint on the other end with explosive drives. The sheer volume of paint touches and defensive stops masked any perimeter spacing concerns.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +13.0
Raw total +36.4
Avg player in 35.9m -19.1
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 35.8m
18
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.5

Uncharacteristic inefficiency around the basket suppressed his usual offensive dominance, as he forced several heavily contested hooks. However, his elite positioning in drop coverage and active hands in the passing lanes salvaged a positive rating. The defensive anchoring ultimately outweighed the clunky shot selection.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 39.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 35.8m -19.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tari Eason 24.8m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

Wreaked absolute havoc as a weak-side disruptor, generating deflections that ignited the transition break. His relentless motor on loose balls and physical screen navigation defined this highly impactful two-way performance. Despite a streaky finishing touch inside, his sheer energy dictated the tempo of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 24.8m -13.1
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Rushed decision-making and forced perimeter looks derailed his offensive efficiency and dragged his overall rating into the red. Despite fighting hard over screens and maintaining solid defensive positioning, his inability to find a shooting rhythm was costly. Opponents successfully sped up his internal clock, leading to poor shot quality.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 26.0m -13.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

A complete offensive ghost whose lack of aggression allowed the opposition to play five-on-four defensively. His failure to connect on open corner looks or attack closeouts resulted in a catastrophic net rating. Even his typically reliable switchability on defense lacked its usual bite.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 19.4m -10.3
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Okogie 14.7m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Offensive spacing issues severely handicapped his stint, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter to clog the paint. While he brought his trademark physicality and defensive grit, the inability to punish closeouts stalled the team's momentum. His hustle metrics couldn't overcome the structural damage caused by his shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 14.7m -7.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Maximized a brief rotation stint by dominating the restricted area and sealing off driving lanes. His vertical spacing and hard rim-rolls forced the defense into impossible rotation choices. Provided a massive jolt of interior stability that stabilized the frontcourt during a crucial stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 8.5m -4.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Logged less than a minute of floor time in a purely situational capacity. Kept the ball moving on his lone possession without forcing any action. Maintained a neutral impact during an uneventful closing sequence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Entered the contest strictly to run out the clock in the final minute. Did not register a single measurable event outside of basic floor spacing. His slightly negative rating is merely the result of a meaningless end-of-game possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +150.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 33.5m
18
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.8

Pacing and transition speed generated reliable offense, yet his overall impact slipped into the red. Defensive miscommunications and late closeouts on the perimeter bled points going the other way. The scoring bump masked a tendency to get caught ball-watching in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 33.5m -17.9
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Stephon Castle 32.8m
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.2

Relentless rim pressure and off-ball movement generated high-quality looks to stabilize the offense. His exceptional hustle rating reflects a willingness to dive for loose balls and extend possessions. Navigating screens with physicality allowed him to maintain a positive two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 32.8m -17.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Harrison Barnes 28.8m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Efficient shot selection couldn't salvage a highly passive floor game that yielded a negative overall rating. He floated on the perimeter rather than engaging in the dirty work, evidenced by a near-zero hustle metric. Opponents routinely exploited his lack of physical resistance at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 28.8m -15.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
28
pts
16
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.4

Completely dictated the terms of engagement through sheer rim deterrence and massive defensive metrics. Even with a cold night from beyond the arc, his interior gravity warped the opponent's defensive shell. The sheer volume of altered shots and high-leverage contests drove an elite overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 12/15 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 39.4%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +13.8
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 28.6m -15.2
Impact +20.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 4
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Offensive rhythm vanished entirely as he settled for heavily contested perimeter looks. The severe drop-off in scoring production cratered his overall impact despite a respectable effort in defensive rotations. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 20.9m -11.0
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Bully-ball drives into the teeth of the defense generated consistent rim pressure. While the outside shot wasn't falling, his willingness to absorb contact and finish in traffic buoyed his overall rating. Kept his matchup honest by constantly attacking closeouts with aggression.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 26.7m -14.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups derailed his offensive rhythm and dragged down his overall rating. The lack of downhill aggression allowed the defense to stay home on shooters. A few missed defensive assignments in transition compounded a highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.7m -12.0
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 22.1m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll allowed him to dissect the defense for high-percentage interior looks. He rarely forced the issue, taking exactly what the coverage conceded to maintain elite efficiency. This steady, mistake-free execution anchored the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +41.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 22.1m -11.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Luke Kornet 18.7m
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Masterclass in executing a role without needing offensive touches. Verticality at the rim and disciplined drop coverage completely shut off driving lanes for opposing guards. His positive impact stemmed entirely from setting bone-crushing screens and executing flawless defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.4%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 18.7m -9.9
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Brief cameo yielded minimal statistical footprint as he struggled to integrate into the offensive flow. Showed brief flashes of defensive activity on the perimeter but lacked the minutes to establish any real rhythm. Primarily served as an emergency floor-spacer during a fragmented rotation stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -62.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Inserted strictly for situational depth during the closing seconds. Did not log enough floor time to register a meaningful impact on either end of the court. His negative rating is a mere statistical artifact of a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.7m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A rushed perimeter attempt during a fleeting appearance tanked his fractional impact score. Failed to generate any defensive pressure or hustle stats in his limited seconds of action. Essentially burned a possession without contributing to the team's structural goals.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 0.7m -0.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Burned the final seconds of the clock in a purely administrative substitution. Generated zero measurable events across all impact categories. His rating reflects the dead-ball nature of his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.7m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0