GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Giving up too much ground on the defensive end severely punished his overall score, masking an otherwise decent perimeter shooting display. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll actions, neutralizing the value of his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -46.7
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 33.3m -18.1
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kevin Durant 32.6m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Uncharacteristic perimeter struggles defined his night, with four missed triples dragging down his usually elite offensive efficiency. He compensated by locking in on the other end, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate a strong +7.8 defensive mark, though it wasn't quite enough to pull his total out of the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 32.6m -17.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 31.0m
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Despite a dip in his usual scoring efficiency, his exceptional positional awareness yielded a +7.5 defensive rating. He anchored the interior through disciplined drop coverage and generated extra possessions by consistently winning the leverage battle on the glass.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.7
Defense +7.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 31.0m -16.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 28.6m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

An inability to finish at the rim plagued his offensive possessions, significantly dampening his overall value despite a tremendous +6.8 hustle rating. He was a terror in transition and on loose balls, but the half-court scoring limitations ultimately sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +6.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 28.6m -15.6
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tari Eason 27.6m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Hyper-efficient shot selection maximized his offensive footprint, taking only what the defense gave him. His overall impact remained relatively muted, however, as he struggled to leave his usual chaotic imprint on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 27.6m -15.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brutal shooting slump tanked his offensive rating, as he repeatedly forced contested looks against set defenses. He managed to provide decent point-of-attack resistance, but the sheer volume of wasted possessions dictated his negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 18.9m -10.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 16.6m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Brought his trademark chaotic energy to the floor with hard closeouts and diving for loose balls, reflected in his solid defensive and hustle metrics. Unfortunately, his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, dragging his total score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 16.6m -9.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 14.9m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Maximized a short rotation stint by dominating the restricted area and altering shots at the rim. His +5.3 defensive rating highlights a vintage rim-protection performance that completely deterred opponents from challenging him inside.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 14.9m -8.1
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.6

Provided an immediate jolt of instant offense off the bench, punishing defensive lapses with decisive drives and crisp shooting. His ability to instantly change the pace of the game in just under 11 minutes resulted in a highly efficient positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 10.9m -5.8
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Bricked his only two attempts and looked completely out of sync during a disjointed seven-minute stint. While he tried to make up for it with physical on-ball defense, the offensive zeroes were too heavy to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -79.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 7.2m -3.8
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 7.0m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to find a rhythm during his brief time orchestrating the offense, missing a pair of rushed attempts. The lack of meaningful penetration or defensive disruption kept him slightly below the break-even mark.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 7.0m -3.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 5.7m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Knocked down a timely perimeter shot to break a recent scoring drought and space the floor in a limited run. He played mistake-free basketball during his shift, allowing him to sneak away with a marginally positive net score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +63.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Made a massive defensive imprint in under six minutes, utilizing his wingspan to blow up actions and generate a +3.9 defensive rating. His hyper-focused energy on the less glamorous end of the floor drove a highly efficient overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +63.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 5.7m -3.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Neemias Queta 38.9m
10
pts
19
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

A dominant +14.1 defensive rating tells the story of a player who completely walled off the paint and deterred drives at the rim. He didn't need high usage to swing the game, instead relying on elite verticality and screen-setting to anchor a massive +14.8 total impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +14.1
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 38.9m -21.1
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 2
S Derrick White 37.1m
28
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-volume gunning yielded a major scoring spike but ultimately dragged his net impact into the red due to 15 missed field goals. The sheer number of empty possessions offset his perimeter shot-making, neutralizing what was otherwise an aggressive offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 6/14 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 37.1m -20.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luka Garza 33.8m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Relentless activity in the paint drove a massive +8.3 hustle rating, allowing him to generate second-chance opportunities and control the glass. While his outside touch was spotty, his sheer physical presence and interior positioning dictated the tempo during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +8.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 33.8m -18.3
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ron Harper Jr. 33.3m
11
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Bouncing back from a scoreless stretch, he provided a crucial offensive spark by hunting his shot from beyond the arc. His overall impact barely broke even, however, as his defensive containment and off-ball awareness failed to match his scoring utility.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 33.3m -18.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

An unexpected scoring surge anchored his positive impact, capitalizing on perimeter catch-and-shoot opportunities to shatter his recent averages. Solid defensive rotations and timely closeouts kept his overall net rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 23.0m -12.5
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
27
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.0

Elite shot creation and perimeter spacing fueled a massive offensive rating, punishing drop coverages with pull-up threes. Despite leaving some efficiency on the table with 11 missed shots, his aggressive downhill attacks kept the defense in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 33.5m -18.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish through contact resulted in a heavily negative overall impact. While he showed occasional flashes of energy on 50/50 balls, his offensive possessions frequently stalled out the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 15.3m -8.3
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 14.7m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his overall score, as he failed to convert on limited looks and disrupted the team's spacing. He salvaged some value through active hands in the passing lanes, but the lack of scoring gravity made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 14.7m -7.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

A stark drop-off from his recent production, his brief stint was defined by a total lack of offensive involvement. He managed to stay engaged defensively during his short run, but the inability to generate any pressure on the rim tanked his rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 7.1m -3.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Max Shulga 1.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Barely saw the floor and forced a bad look during his fleeting garbage-time appearance. The negative impact score is purely a byproduct of an empty possession in an incredibly small sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Registered only a cardio session with a single missed perimeter jumper to show for it. His inability to impact the glass or alter shots in his brief cameo left him with a negative ledger.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0