GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 40.8m
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.1

Struggled to navigate drop coverage, often driving into traffic and stalling out possessions when passing lanes closed. Despite generating solid hustle metrics, his minutes were marred by poor spacing and an inability to punish defenders sagging off him.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 40.8m -21.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 36.1m
21
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.1

Offensive rhythm was severely disrupted by settling for contested, late-clock perimeter jumpers instead of attacking the seams. While his weak-side rim protection remained sharp, the inefficient shot diet dragged his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 36.1m -18.8
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
16
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

A heavy reliance on perimeter isolation plays yielded poor returns and killed ball movement. Despite securing defensive rebounds, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently allowed the defense to pack the paint against drivers.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 35.8m -18.7
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tari Eason 34.0m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Shot selection cratered his value, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested threes early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition breaks, compounding his offensive inefficiency into a massive deficit.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 34.0m -17.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 29.4m
16
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.9

Operated effectively out of the high post, using his vision to dissect double teams and keep the offense flowing. A few missed rotations on the defensive end limited his ceiling, but his playmaking hub role secured a positive shift.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 29.4m -15.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

Stretched the defense effectively by punishing late closeouts with quick-trigger perimeter shooting. His gravity on the outside opened up driving lanes for teammates, driving a positive impact through efficient shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 25.0m -13.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Clint Capela 16.5m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.2

Anchored the interior defense during his minutes by sealing off driving lanes and altering shots at the rim. His screening angles freed up ball-handlers effectively, translating low-usage offensive involvement into a loud net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.2
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 16.5m -8.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Brought high-energy ball pressure during a short stint, disrupting the opponent's initiation of offensive sets. However, his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him, neutralizing his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 12.8m -6.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

A highly detrimental rotational stint defined by blown defensive assignments and empty offensive possessions. Opponents actively targeted him in space, leading to a steep negative impact in less than ten minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -3.0
Raw total -4.7
Avg player in 9.6m -5.0
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAC LA Clippers
S Brook Lopez 37.1m
15
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite rim protection and timely floor-spacing drove a highly positive shift. Hitting multiple trail threes forced opposing bigs out of the paint, which systematically opened up driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 37.1m -19.3
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 36.6m
16
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.6

An uncharacteristically hot shooting night from deep masked underlying issues with offensive flow during his minutes. Defensive rotations were often a step slow, bleeding points on the other end to result in a slight negative impact despite the scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 36.6m -19.0
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S John Collins 35.5m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

A negative overall impact suggests his minutes were plagued by poor spacing or defensive breakdowns in transition. His interior finishing remained reliable, but an inability to stretch the floor allowed help defenders to comfortably clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 35.5m -18.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 32.6m
27
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.4

Defensive discipline anchored his +14.4 overall impact, as he consistently suffocated primary assignments on the perimeter. While his three-point stroke was flat, his ability to generate high-value looks inside the arc kept the offense highly efficient.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 40.6%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +12.4
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 32.6m -17.0
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

Capitalized on transition opportunities and timely cuts to generate a massive scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. His vertical spacing and active hands in the passing lanes provided a steady positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 30.3m -15.9
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Overcame a rough shooting night by locking in defensively, generating a massive +9.2 defensive score through relentless point-of-attack pressure. His willingness to crash the glass and contest shots ensured he remained a net positive despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +9.2
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 31.0m -16.2
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Struggled to find a rhythm offensively, forcing a few contested looks that derailed possession momentum. The lack of scoring punch combined with quiet defensive stretches led to a noticeable drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 17.1m -9.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided steady interior resistance during a brief rotation stint, altering shots around the basket. His value came entirely from disciplined positioning rather than offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 10.2m -5.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Failed to capitalize on his limited offensive touches, stalling out half-court sets with indecisiveness. A few solid defensive closeouts kept his overall impact from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 9.7m -5.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0