GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 39.5m
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.3

Uncharacteristic inefficiency from the midrange allowed the defense to dictate the terms of engagement. He settled for heavily contested, late-clock isolations that frequently resulted in empty trips and stalled the offensive flow. Despite solid weakside rim protection, the sheer volume of missed heavily-guarded jumpers dragged his overall impact deeply into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 39.5m -18.5
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
S Amen Thompson 39.4m
26
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+26.1

Utterly dominated the restricted area through relentless cutting and explosive transition finishing. His ability to seamlessly switch across four positions defensively suffocated the opponent's primary actions. The sheer perfection of his shot selection at the rim drove an astronomically high positive impact.

Shooting
FG 11/12 (91.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +7.5
Defense +10.2
Raw total +44.6
Avg player in 39.4m -18.5
Impact +26.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Reed Sheppard 35.7m
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

Exceptional anticipation on the defensive end fueled a flurry of deflections and transition-starting steals. He struggled to find the bottom of the net on his floaters, but his relentless ball pressure more than compensated for the offensive hiccups. A textbook example of utilizing high-IQ hustle to salvage a poor shooting night.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 35.7m -16.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 4
S Alperen Sengun 25.9m
28
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

A masterclass in interior footwork and touch dismantled the opposing frontcourt in the half-court. He consistently punished switches by burying smaller defenders under the rim for high-percentage looks. While his drop-coverage defense remains a slight vulnerability, the overwhelming offensive efficiency easily kept his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 39.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 25.9m -12.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Tari Eason 25.2m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Bricklaying from beyond the arc stalled out multiple promising offensive possessions. Even though his trademark defensive switchability and rebounding motor were present, the missed jumpers allowed the defense to pack the paint. The resulting spacing issues slightly outweighed his gritty contributions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 25.2m -11.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided a stabilizing presence by executing defensive assignments with zero mistakes. He broke out of a recent shooting slump just enough to keep the defense honest on the perimeter. The low-usage, high-reliability approach yielded a perfectly neutral, fundamentally sound performance.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 25.1m -11.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 22.1m
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Offensive invisibility severely hampered the starting unit's pick-and-roll dynamics. He failed to establish deep post position or make himself available as a lob threat, allowing perimeter defenders to aggressively trap the ball handlers. While his interior rim deterrence remained stout, the complete lack of scoring gravity dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 22.1m -10.3
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Josh Okogie 15.1m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Offensive passivity allowed his defender to essentially play free safety and clog the driving lanes. He brought his usual chaotic energy to the offensive glass, but it wasn't enough to overcome playing four-on-five in half-court sets. The defensive intensity was admirable, yet the complete refusal to look at the basket limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 15.1m -7.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Erratic decision-making on drives led to forced, off-balance attempts that sparked opponent run-outs. He applied excellent ball pressure at the point of attack, blowing up a few dribble hand-offs to keep the defense afloat. Ultimately, the offensive disjointedness slightly overshadowed his gritty perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 12.1m -5.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 39.5m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.9

Elite defensive activity and relentless energy defined a dominant two-way showing. He blew up opponent sets with perfectly timed weakside help and generated massive value through loose ball recoveries. The combination of high-level hustle and timely perimeter shot-making made him a nightmare matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +10.5
Defense +14.6
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 39.5m -18.6
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jerami Grant 38.1m
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.3

Consistent two-way effort anchored his positive impact, with strong defensive rotations covering up for a slightly inefficient shooting night. His ability to generate high-value hustle plays kept possessions alive during critical stretches. A steadying presence on the wing who disrupted passing lanes effectively.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 38.1m -17.9
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 37.0m
20
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.0

Despite orchestrating the offense with high-level playmaking vision, his overall impact suffered from poor lineup synergy during key stretches. He settled for contested perimeter jumpers late in the clock, which frequently sparked opponent transition opportunities. His point-of-attack defense remained sturdy, but the inefficient scoring volume ultimately resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 37.0m -17.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Donovan Clingan 25.1m
18
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.6

A sudden surge in offensive aggression caught the defense completely off guard, yielding massive interior value. He dominated the painted area by establishing deep post position and finishing through contact on second-chance opportunities. The resulting gravity opened up the floor, even if his rim protection metrics were relatively quiet compared to his rebounding dominance.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -28.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 25.1m -11.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scoot Henderson 19.7m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

Severe shot-selection issues derailed his minutes, as forced attempts early in the clock consistently bailed out the defense. The inability to convert at the rim negated any playmaking gravity he usually provides when collapsing the paint. A glaring lack of secondary hustle plays meant he offered no alternative ways to positively affect the game.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -3.9
Avg player in 19.7m -9.2
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Vertical spacing and elite rim deterrence formed the foundation of a highly efficient stint. He completely altered the geometry of the paint defensively, forcing opponents into heavily contested floaters. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient finishing, he capitalized perfectly on the few lob opportunities presented to him.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.1
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 22.9m -10.8
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

A complete inability to connect from the perimeter severely cramped the floor for the primary creators. Defenders aggressively sagged off him, effectively turning half-court sets into four-on-five battles. Without any disruptive defensive plays to compensate, his missed open looks proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 20.4m -9.6
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Blake Wesley 13.1m
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Defensive lapses at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that compromised the entire rotation. While he found some rare success attacking closeouts offensively, he gave it all back by dying on screens. The lack of physical resistance on the perimeter ultimately cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.7
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 13.1m -6.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.5

Wreaked absolute havoc in the passing lanes, generating transition opportunities through pure defensive instinct. His ability to navigate screens and recover from behind completely neutralized his primary matchup. Chipping in a timely perimeter conversion was just a bonus on top of a defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +9.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 12.2m -5.7
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 12.1m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Offensive invisibility made it nearly impossible to keep him on the floor during competitive stretches. He hesitated on catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to reset and blow up subsequent actions. Though his defensive positioning was adequate, the complete lack of scoring threat tanked his lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -59.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 12.1m -5.7
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1