GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 43.5m
18
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.4

Dominated every facet of the game to post a massive overall impact (+17.4), fueled equally by elite defense (+10.6) and relentless hustle (+7.4). He lived in the paint, converting high-percentage looks while suffocating ball-handlers at the point of attack. This breakout performance was defined by overwhelming athletic two-way play that completely dictated the tempo.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.5m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +7.3
Defense +10.6
Raw total +39.0
Avg player in 43.5m -21.6
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-20.7

A catastrophic shooting performance completely tanked his overall impact (-20.7) despite respectable defensive metrics. Failing to convert a single shot from the floor destroyed the team's spacing and allowed his defender to freely roam the paint. The night was defined by an icy offensive slump that actively sabotaged the starting unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 15.4%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.3m
Offense -6.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 42.3m -20.9
Impact -20.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Kevin Durant 41.4m
23
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

A phenomenal defensive rating (+12.2) drove his positive impact as much as his typical offensive wizardry. He dictated the flow of the game by combining hyper-efficient perimeter shooting with suffocating length on the wing. This two-way masterclass was defined by his ability to seamlessly toggle between primary scorer and weak-side rim deterrent.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +12.2
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 41.4m -20.4
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 37.1m
17
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.0

Severe inefficiency around the basket dragged his net impact into the red (-6.0) despite solid defensive and hustle contributions. He forced too many contested looks in the post, snapping a hyper-efficient hot streak and wasting valuable offensive possessions. The performance was defined by poor shot selection and an inability to convert the high-value touches he usually buries.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 37.1m -18.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tari Eason 34.0m
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Exceptional hustle (+6.7) and offensive rebounding couldn't quite salvage a negative overall score (-2.9) caused by clunky perimeter shooting. He generated crucial extra possessions through sheer willpower but squandered too many of them with forced jumpers. A chaotic, high-energy shift defined by relentless motor masking a lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 34.0m -16.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
30
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.1

A scorching-hot shooting display drove a massive box score impact (+21.7) as he punished defenders for going under screens. His ability to hit tough, contested threes completely altered the opposing defense's game plan. The night was defined by an offensive explosion that carried the perimeter attack and easily outweighed a quieter defensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 37.1m -18.4
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Okogie 17.7m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Unexpected perimeter accuracy fueled a highly positive bench shift (+3.0) that caught the defense off guard. By knocking down his spot-up opportunities, he punished the help defense and kept the floor spaced. This outing was defined by a sudden burst of offensive efficiency from a player usually relied upon strictly for energy.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 17.7m -8.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 11.9m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Provided a brief but highly effective jolt of interior stability (+2.0) during his limited rotation minutes. He executed his role perfectly by protecting the rim (+2.4) and capitalizing on his few offensive touches. A highly specialized stint defined by vertical spacing and mistake-free drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 11.9m -5.9
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Gui Santos 41.6m
14
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.8

A severe drop in scoring volume and a completely broken perimeter stroke dragged his overall impact deep into the red (-12.8). While he offered solid resistance on the defensive end (+6.9) and stayed active on 50/50 balls, his inability to stretch the floor stalled the half-court offense. This performance snapped a hot streak, defined by a glaring lack of spacing that allowed defenders to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 41.6m -20.7
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 7
26
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

A massive offensive rating (+24.5 Box) was heavily diluted by defensive lapses (-0.6) and a lack of secondary hustle plays. He scored with exceptional efficiency from all three levels, punishing closeouts and keeping the offense humming. Ultimately, his night was defined by elite shot-making that barely outpaced the points he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 39.6m -19.6
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Draymond Green 34.8m
10
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.8

Kept his head above water (+1.8) through highly efficient shot selection and relentless hustle (+5.8) that generated extra possessions. His connective passing drove a strong box score impact, even if his defensive metrics were surprisingly muted. A vintage glue-guy performance defined by timely extra-effort plays rather than sheer volume.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 34.8m -17.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Al Horford 32.7m
17
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.3

Elite two-way stability (+11.3) was fueled by excellent perimeter spacing and a dominant defensive presence (+8.8). He punished drop coverages by confidently stepping into trailing threes, maximizing his offensive footprint without forcing action. His ability to anchor the backline while stretching the floor defined a masterful veteran shift.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +4.9
Defense +8.8
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 32.7m -16.2
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
23
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.3

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump with aggressive, high-volume rim pressure that spiked his overall impact (+12.3). Beyond the scoring surge, his suffocating point-of-attack defense (+10.2) completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm. This bounce-back game was defined by relentless two-way aggression that finally translated into efficient production.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +10.2
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 29.9m -14.9
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
LJ Cryer 20.2m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Elite perimeter shot-making was entirely undone by glaring defensive liabilities (-2.5) that allowed opponents to target him relentlessly. While his floor-spacing provided a noticeable offensive boost, he bled points on the other end through missed rotations and lost matchups. This outing was defined by a classic one-way profile where the hot shooting couldn't mask the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.5
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 20.2m -10.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Quinten Post 20.1m
3
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Total invisibility on the offensive end cratered his overall impact (-10.8) during his time on the floor. Putting up a complete blank from the field, he allowed his matchup to completely sag off and clog the driving lanes. The stint was defined by offensive passivity that negated any minor defensive contributions he managed to provide.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 20.1m -10.0
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A drastic plummet in scoring efficiency and volume dragged his overall impact into the negative (-4.5). He struggled to find any rhythm against physical coverage, forcing contested looks that led to empty possessions. The performance was defined by a jarring inability to replicate his recent offensive spark, leaving the second unit stagnant.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 17.9m -8.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pat Spencer 16.1m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Delivered a highly productive bench shift (+5.3) built on fundamentally sound defense (+5.5) and smart off-ball movement. He maximized his limited minutes by taking high-percentage looks inside the arc and staying active in the passing lanes. A steadying rotational presence defined by zero-mistake basketball and opportunistic scoring.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 16.1m -7.9
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Malevy Leons 12.1m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Managed to tread water (-0.3) despite a literal zero-usage offensive performance. His value came entirely from disciplined defensive positioning (+2.7) and a willingness to do the dirty work on the margins. A pure cardio-and-defense shift defined by absolute offensive invisibility paired with just enough hustle to avoid being a liability.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -43.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 12.1m -6.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0