GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Alperen Sengun 35.6m
16
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.5

Operating as the offensive hub from the high post, his precise interior passing consistently punished defensive over-reactions. He maintained his recent streak of highly efficient finishing by patiently utilizing up-fakes against aggressive rim protectors. Solid positional rebounding and active hands in the passing lanes rounded out a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 35.6m -21.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 34.1m
18
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
+4.4

Shifting seamlessly into a primary playmaking role, his elite court vision tore apart defensive double-teams. Rather than forcing his own offense, he manipulated the weak-side rotations to generate a barrage of open looks for teammates. A surprisingly robust effort in weak-side rim protection further elevated his overall value.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 34.1m -20.3
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
31
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.4

A masterclass in two-way dominance, combining lethal perimeter shot-making with suffocating switch defense. He completely neutralized opposing wings while simultaneously catching fire on pick-and-pop actions to stretch the floor. This explosive breakout performance was defined by his flawless shot selection and relentless weak-side help.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.7%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +13.5
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 33.0m -19.7
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 4
S Tari Eason 31.6m
11
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

A barrage of clanked perimeter jumpers ultimately dragged his net rating into the red despite phenomenal defensive metrics. His relentless ball-denial and switchability blew up several offensive sets, but he gave that value right back by short-circuiting possessions with rushed shots. The inability to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities defined his frustrating night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 31.6m -18.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 29.1m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Relentless downhill attacks and hyper-efficient finishing at the rim fueled a massive positive impact. He completely overwhelmed perimeter defenders with his first step, refusing to settle for outside jumpers. Coupling that offensive rim pressure with suffocating on-ball defense made this a spectacular two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +10.0
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 29.1m -17.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Blistering perimeter marksmanship wasn't quite enough to overcome defensive vulnerabilities that bled points on the other end. While his catch-and-shoot gravity bent the defense, he was consistently targeted and blown by in isolation matchups. The scoring punch was undeniable, but the inability to stay in front of his man kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 23.5m -14.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.2

An absolute cratering of team performance occurred during his minutes, driven by blown defensive assignments and bricked open looks. His inability to knock down corner threes allowed the defense to aggressively cheat off him and swarm the ball-handlers. Getting consistently beat on back-door cuts highlighted a disastrous two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 20.2m -12.0
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Okogie 12.8m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

Offensive spacing issues severely handicapped the team during his brief rotation stint. By completely ignoring him on the perimeter, the opposing defense was able to freely pack the paint and stifle driving lanes. A lack of disruptive hustle plays, usually his calling card, left him with a deeply negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 12.8m -7.5
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Clint Capela 10.2m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Failing to establish deep post position or finish through contact rendered his short stint largely ineffective. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage, allowing guards to easily turn the corner on pick-and-rolls. A lack of vertical spacing and missed bunnies around the rim ultimately sank his rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 10.2m -6.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

A flawless burst of instant offense completely flipped the momentum during his brief time on the hardwood. He maximized every second of his run by attacking closeouts decisively and knocking down every look he took. This hyper-efficient micro-shift provided a crucial scoring jolt to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 5.9m -3.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Barely breaking a sweat in a fleeting appearance, his impact was dragged down by a single forced perimeter miss. He didn't log enough floor time to establish any defensive rhythm or offensive flow. The negative rating is purely a byproduct of an empty possession in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Relegated to pure cardio duty at the end of the rotation, he failed to record a single meaningful statistic. His slightly negative grade stems entirely from being on the floor during an opponent's late scoring sequence. He simply served as a warm body to run out the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 32.2m
29
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Despite a brutal night spacing the floor from beyond the arc, his relentless interior attacks and ability to draw contact kept his offensive value afloat. He compensated for the perimeter brick-laying by anchoring the defensive glass and altering shots inside. This performance was defined by his sheer volume and physical mismatch hunting rather than pure efficiency.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 32.2m -19.1
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Isaiah Collier 29.9m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.8

Tunnel vision and a barrage of clanked perimeter jumpers severely damaged his net rating. He consistently settled for low-quality, off-the-dribble looks rather than initiating offensive flow, wasting valuable possessions. Although he generated some defensive pressure, his inefficient chucking ultimately stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.9m -17.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ace Bailey 27.0m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock completely cratered his offensive impact. While his length provided a massive boost in passing lanes and on-ball defensive assignments, the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed the stops. A severe lack of offensive rhythm defined his night, breaking his recent string of steady production.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.6
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 27.0m -16.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 23.6m
13
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Elite rim-protection metrics nearly salvaged a rough regression game on the offensive end. After a scorching five-game stretch of hyper-efficient finishing, his touch around the basket evaporated against physical interior defense. The defensive positioning was flawless, but clanking several highly contested looks in the paint kept his overall rating neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +11.3
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 23.6m -14.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 6
S Cody Williams 14.2m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A stark drop in offensive aggression compared to his recent scoring tear severely limited his overall value. His passivity on the perimeter dragged his impact into the negative, even though he held up reasonably well in defensive rotations. The complete disappearance of his usual rim pressure left the second unit stagnant.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -45.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 14.2m -8.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Elite shot-making from all three levels fueled a massive offensive impact score. He consistently punished defensive mismatches in isolation, generating high-quality looks without forcing the issue. This surgical scoring display perfectly sustained his recent hot streak and carried the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 31.7m -18.9
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
John Konchar 24.4m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Outstanding defensive instincts and relentless activity on 50/50 balls drove a highly positive overall rating. He perfectly executed his role as a low-usage connector, making timely cuts and avoiding costly mistakes. His ability to blow up opposing dribble hand-offs on the perimeter defined his highly impactful stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 24.4m -14.5
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Kevin Love 24.4m
5
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.8

Clanking a high volume of pick-and-pop threes prevented him from posting a positive overall rating. However, his elite outlet passing and positional rebounding mitigated the damage from his cold shooting touch. The veteran's savvy defensive communication anchored the second unit, even as his jumper betrayed him.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 24.4m -14.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Tremendous point-of-attack defense and high-energy hustle plays nearly balanced out a completely barren offensive showing. He was a total non-threat with the ball in his hands, allowing defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. His relentless ball pressure was the only thing keeping his net impact near neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 14.4m -8.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Failing to find open space on the perimeter rendered his brief stint largely ineffective. Without his usual catch-and-shoot gravity pulling defenders out of the paint, the offense bogged down during his minutes. A couple of forced, heavily contested long-range attempts highlighted a disjointed rotation sequence.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 10.5m -6.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

A disastrous shooting stint where he failed to connect on a single look from deep actively harmed the spacing. His inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint during his short time on the floor. Even a few solid defensive rotations couldn't mask the offensive dead weight he provided.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 7.8m -4.6
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1