GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

An inability to connect from beyond the arc severely cramped the team's spacing and sank his overall net score (-5.3). He was highly effective scoring inside the arc, but defenders eventually began sagging off him to clog the driving lanes. This perimeter hesitancy disrupted the natural rhythm of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 32.6m -18.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Reed Sheppard 32.3m
28
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.4

Unrelenting perimeter aggression stretched the defense to its breaking point, driving a massive +9.4 net impact. He weaponized transition pull-ups to punish retreating defenders, completely altering the opponent's transition coverage. Even with a few forced looks, the sheer volume of floor-spacing value he provided was game-changing.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 7/16 (43.8%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +4.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 32.3m -18.1
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 32.0m
26
pts
13
reb
11
ast
Impact
+26.4

An absolute masterclass in offensive hub creation and defensive positioning yielded a gargantuan +26.4 total impact. He picked apart double teams with surgical passing while dominating his individual matchups in the post. His elite anticipation on the defensive glass (+12.9 Def) consistently triggered lethal transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +28.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +12.9
Raw total +44.3
Avg player in 32.0m -17.9
Impact +26.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 2
S Kevin Durant 27.9m
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Masterful shot creation from the mid-range areas drove a highly efficient offensive footprint (+16.7 Box). He effortlessly shot over smaller defenders, forcing the opposition to scramble their defensive assignments. While his defensive engagement was merely average, his scoring gravity dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 27.9m -15.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tari Eason 20.8m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

High-energy weakside cuts and opportunistic finishing generated a modest but positive overall footprint. He maximized his touches by refusing to force bad shots, taking exactly what the defense conceded. This disciplined approach provided a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 20.8m -11.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Okogie 24.1m
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.8

Relentless ball pressure and elite disruption in the passing lanes (+9.8 Def) fueled a spectacular two-way performance. He completely blew up the opponent's offensive sets with his physicality, generating massive hustle value (+7.1). Catching fire from the perimeter was simply the icing on a dominant defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +55.9
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +7.1
Defense +9.8
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 24.1m -13.4
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.3

Severe point-of-attack defensive breakdowns (-1.0 Def) completely erased his highly efficient shooting night, resulting in a poor -8.3 total impact. Opposing guards consistently blew past him on the perimeter, forcing the defense into constant rotation. His inability to navigate ball screens proved fatal to the team's defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +61.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 20.5m -11.5
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Extreme passivity on the offensive end rendered him virtually invisible, dragging his net score down to -7.1. He frequently passed up open looks, causing the shot clock to dwindle and forcing teammates into tough bail-out situations. While his defensive rotations were adequate, playing 4-on-5 offensively was a massive detriment.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 17.2m -9.6
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jeff Green 14.6m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Sluggish transition defense and a failure to close out on shooters kept his overall impact slightly in the red (-1.1). He provided a few veteran savvy moments in the half-court, but struggled to keep pace with younger, faster matchups. The resulting defensive mismatches negated his efficient offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.6m -8.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 12.5m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Fumbled catches and blown layups in the paint dragged his overall impact deeply into the negative (-3.7). He struggled to establish deep post position, allowing smaller defenders to push him out of his preferred catching zones. Despite decent rim protection, his offensive limitations were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +70.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 12.5m -7.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
JD Davison 5.4m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

A brief cameo was marred by rushed decision-making against set defenses, leading to a slightly negative footprint. He struggled to organize the offense during his short stint, often dribbling into dead ends. The lack of offensive flow ultimately outweighed his minor defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 5.4m -3.0
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
SAC Sacramento Kings
6
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

A severe regression in finishing quality cratered his overall impact (-10.5) despite active work on the glass. He forced too many contested looks inside, snapping a highly efficient four-game stretch. His inability to convert around the rim allowed the opposition to leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 30.1m -16.9
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Maxime Raynaud 28.7m
11
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Solid interior scoring masked underlying defensive rotation issues that dragged his net rating into the red (-1.9). While he maintained his recent streak of efficient finishing, he struggled to anchor the paint against downhill drives. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll coverages.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 28.7m -16.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Relentless rim pressure generated immense offensive volume, but erratic perimeter shot selection neutralized much of that value. He settled for early-clock jumpers that functioned as empty possessions, stalling the team's momentum. Consequently, his massive offensive production translated to a barely positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +14.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.0
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 25.1m -14.1
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 23.8m
15
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.1

Surgical shot selection and elite playmaking from the mid-post drove a highly efficient offensive shift. He manipulated defensive coverages beautifully, prioritizing high-leverage passes over forcing his own offense. This methodical pacing stabilized the half-court attack and yielded a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 23.8m -13.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keegan Murray 8.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Brief court time limited his overall footprint, though he managed to generate positive defensive value (+3.2) through solid positional awareness. Failing to connect on his perimeter looks kept his offensive impact muted. He served primarily as a spacing decoy during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 8.6m -4.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite perimeter containment and active hands defined a stellar defensive showing (+9.1) that kept his overall impact in the green. He stepped into his outside jumpers with confidence, punishing defenders for going under screens. This two-way versatility provided a crucial stabilizing presence on the wing.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.1
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 29.4m -16.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Cold perimeter shooting dragged down his net score (-2.6) despite putting up robust resistance on the defensive end (+5.7). He struggled to find his rhythm from beyond the arc, short-circuiting several promising offensive sets. His inability to stretch the floor allowed help defenders to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 24.4m -13.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Active closeouts and loose-ball recoveries (+3.6 Hustle) couldn't salvage a disjointed offensive performance. He failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities, rendering him an offensive liability during critical stretches. The lack of scoring gravity severely hampered the second unit's floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -55.8
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 21.1m -11.8
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.4

Disastrous finishing around the basket completely overshadowed his respectable point-of-attack defense. He repeatedly drove into traffic without a bailout plan, resulting in wasted possessions and empty trips. The sheer volume of missed shots made it impossible to keep the offense afloat while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 20.2m -11.3
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 19.1m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

A heavy diet of contested perimeter looks tanked his offensive efficiency and overall impact (-3.6). Rather than attacking the paint, he settled for off-balance jumpers that fueled long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. This poor shot selection completely derailed his typically dynamic scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -64.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 19.1m -10.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Provided excellent rim deterrence (+3.6 Def) during a brief but highly effective frontcourt stint. He embraced his role as a physical screener and vertical spacer, opening up driving lanes for the guards without needing touches. His disciplined drop coverage shut down multiple pick-and-roll attempts.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 9.5m -5.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0