Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
WAS lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
WAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Sengun Open 12/20 +0.7
Sheppard Hard 7/18 +0.2
Durant Hard 8/15 +5.0
Thompson 10/15 +4.3
Eason 4/11 -4.0
Finney-Smith Open 2/6 -2.1
Holiday Hard 1/3 -1.2
Capela Open 1/3 -1.7
Okogie Hard 0/1 -1.1

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Coulibaly 9/16 +4.9
George Hard 5/13 +0.8
Cooper 8/10 +7.4
Carrington Hard 4/10 +1.1
Johnson Hard 2/10 -4.5
Hardy 6/9 +4.0
Riley Hard 1/9 -5.3
Champagnie 5/7 +3.8
Watkins 3/4 +2.8
Reese 1/3 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
WAS
45/92 Field Goals 44/91
48.9% Field Goal % 48.4%
9/25 3-Pointers 19/35
36.0% 3-Point % 54.3%
24/28 Free Throws 11/14
85.7% Free Throw % 78.6%
59.0% True Shooting % 60.7%
68 Total Rebounds 36
21 Offensive 7
38 Defensive 20
21 Assists 20
1.00 Assist/TO Ratio 1.54
20 Turnovers 12
10 Steals 15
5 Blocks 4
17 Fouls 24
62 Points in Paint 40
8 Fast Break Pts 24
18 Points off TOs 39
28 Second Chance Pts 18
11 Bench Points 61
19 Largest Lead 5
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Amen Thompson
22 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 30.9 MIN
+25.77
2
Reed Sheppard
19 PTS · 7 REB · 10 AST · 42.1 MIN
+24.1
3
Sharife Cooper
21 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 17.5 MIN
+21.66
4
Alperen Sengun
32 PTS · 13 REB · 2 AST · 38.1 MIN
+19.42
5
Bilal Coulibaly
23 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 26.5 MIN
+18.28
6
Kevin Durant
30 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 37.0 MIN
+16.26
7
Justin Champagnie
12 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 26.9 MIN
+15.52
8
Bub Carrington
11 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 28.4 MIN
+15.48
9
Kyshawn George
16 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 21.6 MIN
+10.56
10
Jamir Watkins
7 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 18.5 MIN
+9.08
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 S. Cooper 26' 3PT pullup (21 PTS) 123–118
Q4 0:05 HOU shot clock Team TURNOVER 123–115
Q4 0:29 B. Carrington technical Free Throw 1 of 1 (11 PTS) 123–115
Q4 0:29 K. Durant technical FOUL (1 Tech) 123–114
Q4 0:29 S. Cooper running Layup (18 PTS) (J. Champagnie 2 AST) 123–114
Q4 0:32 J. Champagnie STEAL (3 STL) 123–112
Q4 0:32 K. Durant bad pass TURNOVER (6 TO) 123–112
Q4 0:48 J. Champagnie DUNK (12 PTS) 123–112
Q4 0:49 J. Champagnie STEAL (2 STL) 123–110
Q4 0:49 K. Durant bad pass TURNOVER (5 TO) 123–110
Q4 0:50 K. Durant REBOUND (Off:1 Def:6) 123–110
Q4 0:52 MISS W. Riley 27' pullup 3PT 123–110
Q4 1:10 R. Sheppard 26' 3PT (19 PTS) (A. Sengun 2 AST) 123–110
Q4 1:29 S. Cooper Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 120–110
Q4 1:29 S. Cooper Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 120–109

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 28.4m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

Hovered right around neutral as his defensive disruption was offset by poor ball security. A tendency to force tight-window passes in the pick-and-roll resulted in empty trips. Managed to salvage his rating slightly by fighting through screens effectively at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Julian Reese 27.7m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-19.5

Completely neutralized by physical post defense that pushed him out of his preferred catching zones. Forced into uncomfortable playmaking situations, he surrendered multiple costly turnovers that ignited transition breaks. The inability to establish deep position cratered his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bilal Coulibaly 26.5m
23
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.2

Punished defensive drop coverage with lethal precision from the perimeter. Every time the defense went under a screen, he confidently stepped into rhythm jumpers that swung the momentum. His decisive shot-making was the primary engine for the team's offensive surges.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +17.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 21.6m
16
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Maintained a strong positive impact through sheer activity level and loose-ball recoveries. Even when his floaters weren't falling, his willingness to crash the offensive glass extended crucial possessions. Timely closeouts on the perimeter prevented several easy looks.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tre Johnson 21.5m
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.3

Shot selection was highly detrimental, featuring heavily contested mid-range pull-ups early in the clock. This string of empty possessions allowed the opposition to build a massive rebounding advantage. The resulting offensive drought heavily outweighed his passable on-ball defense.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Will Riley 33.0m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

An abysmal shooting night from the perimeter completely derailed the offensive flow. Defenders blatantly ignored him behind the arc, severely compromising the team's driving lanes. Despite solid defensive rotations, his inability to stretch the floor proved catastrophic.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Capitalized brilliantly on off-ball movement to find soft spots in the zone defense. His timely baseline cuts punished ball-watching defenders and yielded high-percentage finishes. Exceptional weak-side rim protection further amplified his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.1

Generated massive value through relentless energy and transition rim-running. By consistently beating his man down the floor, he warped the transition defense and created cross-matches. His knack for securing 50/50 balls kept several crucial offensive sequences alive.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Hardy 18.4m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Defensive apathy and poor closeouts severely undermined his scoring efficiency. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and failed to navigate off-ball screens, bleeding points on the other end. The lack of defensive resistance completely erased the value of his shot-making.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.6

Sliced through the defensive shell with elite burst and impeccable decision-making. By constantly probing the paint, he forced defensive rotations that led to high-value scoring chances. His surgical operation in the half-court was the defining factor in his massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +19.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Reed Sheppard 42.1m
19
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.2

Defensive tenacity and elite hustle metrics drove a highly positive impact despite streaky shooting. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions by fighting over screens and jumping passing lanes. Those extra possessions and deflections perfectly compensated for the missed perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.1m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +13.3
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 6
BLK 2
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 38.1m
32
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.5

Utterly dominated the interior through exceptional positioning and high-IQ shot selection. His ability to seal defenders early in the post created high-percentage looks that anchored the half-court offense. Tremendous defensive rebounding and rim deterrence generated a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +25.2
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +16.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -19.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 8
S Kevin Durant 37.0m
30
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.9

Careless ball security severely undercut an otherwise efficient scoring night. Several live-ball turnovers in the third quarter directly fueled a devastating transition run for the opposition. The high scoring volume simply masked how much value he gave back through unforced errors.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +25.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -14.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Amen Thompson 30.9m
22
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.9

Relentless downhill attacks completely collapsed the opposing defense. By consistently beating his primary matchup off the dribble, he generated pristine scoring angles at the rim. His point-of-attack defense disrupted timing and forced multiple rushed decisions.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +8.4
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tari Eason 24.6m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Inefficient perimeter shooting dragged down his overall impact despite solid defensive metrics. A barrage of forced attempts late in the shot clock resulted in long rebounds that ignited opponent fast breaks. His physical on-ball pressure couldn't fully offset the offensive stagnation he caused.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to aggressively help off him and clog the paint. Hesitancy to pull the trigger on open catch-and-shoot opportunities bogged down the spacing. While his weak-side rotations were adequate, the offensive limitations proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Stagnated the second-unit offense by over-dribbling against set defenses. Failed to initiate actions quickly, leading to late-clock bail-out attempts and empty possessions. The lack of playmaking rhythm completely negated his decent hustle numbers.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 11.3m
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Maximized limited minutes by setting bone-crushing screens that freed up the guards. His vertical spacing forced the defense to drop deep, opening up the mid-range game for his teammates. Controlled the glass efficiently during his short stint to secure a positive margin.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.9

Completely lost his defensive assignments during a disastrous second-quarter stint. Repeatedly bit on pump fakes and committed costly shooting fouls that gifted free points. Offered zero offensive threat, allowing his man to roam freely as a free safety.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0