GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 40.6m
21
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+11.1

Downhill aggression and relentless rim pressure shattered the opponent's defensive shell. He dictated the tempo perfectly in transition, routinely finding shooters or finishing through contact. A highly disruptive defensive presence cemented his status as the engine of the lineup.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 40.6m -21.7
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 38.2m
13
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.3

An unusually clunky shooting night dragged his overall impact into the negative despite stellar defensive engagement. Opposing double-teams successfully forced the ball out of his hands, leading to broken offensive sets. His elite rim protection and weak-side help were the only things keeping his score from plummeting further.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.2%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 38.2m -20.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 34.8m
14
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.3

Forcing tough shots through double-teams in the post severely damaged his offensive efficiency. The opponent's physical interior defense completely disrupted his usual playmaking hub actions. A lack of transition hustle further compounded the negative impact of his missed bunnies around the rim.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 34.8m -18.6
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Elite two-way execution defined this performance, highlighted by suffocating perimeter defense against smaller wings. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by confidently stepping into rhythm triples. His ability to stretch the floor while anchoring the weak side made him indispensable.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 33.3m -17.7
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Tari Eason 31.4m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Relentless activity in the passing lanes and strong point-of-attack defense drove his positive value. He consistently punished defensive lapses by cutting baseline for easy finishes. His chaotic energy disrupted the opponent's offensive timing throughout the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 31.4m -16.7
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Okogie 21.4m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

A surprising outburst of perimeter shot-making provided a massive lift to the second unit. He paired this unexpected spacing with his trademark aggressive closeouts and physical screen navigation. Capitalizing on defensive neglect allowed him to massively overperform his usual offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 21.4m -11.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

A frigid night from beyond the arc neutralized his usual offensive gravity, stalling out several half-court sets. He managed to salvage his impact score through excellent rotational defense and active hands. However, the inability to punish drop coverage ultimately left him as a slight negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 17.3m -9.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Clint Capela 12.7m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Dominant screen-setting and vertical spacing in limited minutes provided a highly efficient offensive spark. He completely sealed off the paint defensively, altering multiple shots at the rim during his brief stint. His physical presence inside forced the opponent into lower-percentage floaters.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 12.7m -6.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Hesitancy to shoot open corner looks allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings, leading to defensive breakdowns on the perimeter. The lack of tangible offensive contributions made it difficult to justify extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -46.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 10.3m -5.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 38.9m
34
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.7

Flagg's massive positive impact was driven by relentless interior finishing and elite defensive disruption. He dominated his primary matchups by attacking the paint repeatedly, offsetting a quiet night from beyond the arc. His consistent scoring gravity warped the opposing defense all night.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +9.8
Raw total +33.5
Avg player in 38.9m -20.8
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Max Christie 32.0m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

While he connected efficiently from deep, his struggles finishing inside the arc severely dampened his net impact. Defensive lapses on the perimeter allowed his matchups to exploit driving lanes too easily. The inability to create separation off the dribble led to contested, low-quality mid-range attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 32.0m -17.0
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 31.6m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

Poor shot selection and forced isolation drives cratered his offensive efficiency in this matchup. Despite generating solid hustle metrics, his inability to convert in traffic resulted in empty possessions. The stark drop-off in scoring volume drastically dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 29.3%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 31.6m -16.9
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 28.3m
16
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.8

Elite rim-running and vertical spacing fueled a highly efficient offensive outing. He consistently sealed off defenders in the pick-and-roll, generating high-percentage looks at the basket. A strong defensive presence further solidified his role as an interior anchor.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +22.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 28.3m -15.1
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S P.J. Washington 25.1m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.7

A lack of offensive aggression severely capped his overall value, resulting in a steep negative impact score. Passing up open looks disrupted the team's spacing and rhythm. While his defensive rotations were passable, his inability to stretch the floor rendered him a liability.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 25.1m -13.4
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than moving the ball stalled the offense significantly. His lack of lateral quickness on defense was routinely exploited by quicker guards in isolation. The combination of cold shooting and defensive vulnerability resulted in a team-worst impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 27.6m -14.7
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Martin 16.7m
4
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.1

Defensive versatility was the primary driver of his positive impact, as he seamlessly switched across multiple positions. Even with his shot not falling, his off-ball movement and connective passing kept the offensive flow intact. High-energy closeouts routinely disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 16.7m -8.9
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Moussa Cisse 13.3m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A failure to command the glass or alter shots around the rim limited his effectiveness in a backup role. He was frequently caught out of position on pick-and-roll coverages, giving up easy floaters. The lack of offensive involvement made him a non-factor on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 13.3m -7.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.9

Rushed decision-making and forced attempts in the paint completely derailed his offensive rhythm. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently leaving shooters with too much airspace. The inability to orchestrate the second unit effectively led to a stagnant stretch of basketball.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 11.1m -5.9
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Instant offense off the bench defined this highly efficient burst, maximizing a short rotational window. He decisively attacked closeouts and capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities to tilt the momentum. However, slight defensive liabilities kept his overall impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 9.0m -4.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Brief rotational minutes yielded negligible production, as he failed to establish any physical presence in the paint. He was largely invisible on the offensive end, setting weak screens that failed to create advantages. A lack of defensive rebounding during his stint allowed second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -75.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 6.4m -3.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0