GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 37.7m
26
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

A heavy volume of forced, contested jumpers dragged down his overall efficiency and stunted the offense's rhythm. He managed to offset much of that offensive damage by playing elite, disruptive defense on the wing, but the sheer number of empty possessions ultimately resulted in a slightly negative impact.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.1
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 37.7m -19.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
13
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Settled too often for contested perimeter looks rather than using his size to attack the interior. While his weak-side rim protection and rebounding were rock solid, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently allowed defenders to pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 37.5m -19.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Amen Thompson 37.4m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Wreaked havoc in the open floor, turning defensive stops into immediate downhill pressure. His elite screen navigation and relentless ball pursuit completely overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 37.4m -18.8
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 34.5m
22
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.7

Carved up single coverage in the post with a masterclass of footwork and soft touch to drive a massive box score impact. However, his overall net rating was muted by sluggish pick-and-roll defense, where opposing guards consistently turned the corner against his drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 34.5m -17.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tari Eason 29.7m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

An absolute black hole on offense tonight, derailing multiple possessions with wild, out-of-control drives to the basket. Even his trademark high-energy hustle plays couldn't compensate for the transition opportunities he handed the opponent via missed layups.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 29.7m -15.0
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

Delivered a two-way masterclass, pairing lethal perimeter spacing with absolute lockdown point-of-attack defense. He routinely blew up dribble hand-offs and generated massive momentum swings through high-IQ hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +6.6
Defense +9.5
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 29.6m -14.9
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

Floated through his minutes with alarming passivity, failing to assert himself on either end of the floor. Because he refused to pull the trigger on open looks, the offensive spacing collapsed, leading to a severely negative net rating during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 20.2m -10.2
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Clint Capela 13.3m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Operated strictly as a defensive anchor during his limited minutes, altering shots around the rim without demanding any offensive touches. His complete lack of scoring gravity allowed his defender to roam freely, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 13.3m -6.8
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 31.5m
24
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.3

Despite clanking a dozen field goal attempts in a high-usage role, his overall impact remained heavily positive due to relentless defensive pressure. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and generated extra possessions through hustle plays, proving his value extends far beyond scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 31.5m -15.8
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S John Collins 31.0m
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Sustained his recent streak of highly efficient finishing around the rim by aggressively capitalizing on mismatches in the paint. His strong defensive rotations anchored the interior, ensuring his offensive production wasn't immediately given right back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 31.0m -15.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 29.1m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

A brutal overall net rating suggests he was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll coverage during key opponent runs. While his individual rim protection metrics held up adequately, his inability to close out on stretch bigs severely compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 29.1m -14.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 27.8m
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.9

Dictated the tempo perfectly as a secondary creator, making quick, decisive reads that kept the offense flowing without turning the ball over. His suffocating on-ball pressure completely derailed the opponent's perimeter initiation during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 27.8m -14.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Elite point-of-attack defense and high-motor hustle plays were entirely overshadowed by severe offensive spacing issues. Opponents routinely sagged off him to clog the paint, turning his missed perimeter shots into transition opportunities the other way.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 26.7m -13.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

Overcame a miserable shooting night by locking in on the less glamorous side of the floor. His aggressive closeouts and disciplined weak-side rotations salvaged his overall rating despite forcing several contested mid-range jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 25.9m -13.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Struggled to find the flow of the game, often getting caught out of position during transition defensive sequences. While he knocked down a couple of open looks, his lack of off-ball activity and low hustle metrics left the second unit vulnerable.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 16.9m -8.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Kobe Sanders 15.8m
2
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.0

Shot selection was the primary culprit behind a disastrous net rating, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the clock. Those empty possessions acted as live-ball turnovers, directly fueling the opponent's transition attack and cratering the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 15.8m -7.9
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Brought a brief spark of energy with active hands in the passing lanes and solid screen-setting during his short stint. However, his limited offensive polish allowed defenders to cheat off him, stalling out half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 13.4m -6.8
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Completely flipped the game's momentum during a chaotic stretch by pushing the pace relentlessly. His size advantage at the guard spot allowed him to bully smaller defenders and generate instant offense in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +97.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 5.5m -2.8
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made his mark entirely on the defensive end during a short stint, utilizing his length to contest perimeter shooters effectively. He remained a complete non-factor offensively, deferring to teammates rather than looking for his own shot.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +97.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.5m -2.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Provided a quick jolt of vertical spacing, easily finishing the few lob opportunities that came his way. His physical rim-runs forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for shooters during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +97.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 5.5m -2.7
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Maximized a brief garbage-time cameo by executing offensive sets with crisp precision. He decisively attacked closeouts, though his defensive footwork remained a step slow against quicker guards.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +97.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 5.5m -2.8
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0