GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 38.6m
23
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.2

Relentless rim pressure and elite finishing continued his recent streak of highly efficient offensive production. He leveraged his athleticism to create advantages in transition, though his massive box score production was slightly muted by hidden defensive lapses in the half-court. His ability to collapse the paint and generate high-quality looks defined his positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 38.6m -18.1
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.8

Elite two-way execution defined a breakout performance, combining high-level shot-making with stifling defensive versatility (+6.9). He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find open space, punishing late rotations from the perimeter. Breaking out of a recent efficiency rut, his decisive offensive actions and active rim protection drove a dominant net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.9
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 35.2m -16.5
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kevin Durant 32.6m
29
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.0

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency and defensive engagement resulted in a towering +22.0 net impact. He completely dismantled his primary defenders with surgical shot selection, while simultaneously anchoring the defense with elite weak-side help (+8.4 Def). His ability to seamlessly blend high-volume scoring with relentless hustle (+5.8) made him the undisputed engine of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/16 (75.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.4
Raw total +37.3
Avg player in 32.6m -15.3
Impact +22.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Tari Eason 31.1m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

High-motor plays and solid defensive metrics couldn't mask the hidden costs of his floor time. His overall impact slipped into the red due to disjointed transition defense and minor spacing issues that clogged the driving lanes. While his individual effort was undeniable, his minutes coincided with negative team-wide stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 31.1m -14.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 29.9m
14
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing around the basket snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient outings. Despite securing extra possessions and providing solid defensive rebounding, his missed bunnies and stalled post-ups neutralized his overall value. The offense bogged down when he tried to force the issue against double-teams, resulting in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 29.9m -14.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

A catastrophic shooting slump completely cratered his impact, as forced perimeter shots and broken offensive rhythm bled value. He failed to create separation against physical guards, stalling out the second unit's flow and leading to empty possessions. Despite trying to compensate with decent defensive positioning, the sheer volume of missed looks made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -6.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 23.6m -11.1
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Offensive invisibility and a lack of floor-stretching gravity severely hampered the lineup's spacing. Even though he competed hard on the margins with solid hustle stats (+3.1), his inability to punish closeouts allowed defenders to freely double the stars. He was effectively played off the floor during key stretches due to his offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 21.1m -10.0
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 13.5m
4
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Dominant glass-cleaning and disciplined drop coverage anchored a highly effective rotational shift. He didn't need offensive touches to influence the game, instead generating value by erasing second-chance opportunities for the opponent. His vertical spacing and physical screen-setting opened up crucial driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 13.5m -6.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A completely empty stint was defined by a lack of engagement and poor defensive awareness (-0.5). He failed to register any hustle stats or disrupt the opponent's rhythm, acting as a passenger during his brief time on the court. The opposition easily exploited his side of the floor, driving his net impact firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -48.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 6.5m -3.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Maximized a garbage-time cameo with aggressive point-of-attack defense and decisive execution. He immediately pressured the ball handler upon checking in, generating a quick positive swing in the game's final moments. His focused energy ensured the team didn't bleed points before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 2.6m -1.2
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Showed a flash of energy with active hands (+1.3 Hustle) during a brief end-of-bench appearance. He stayed within the system and avoided glaring mistakes, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact. His minutes were strictly about eating the clock rather than changing the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 2.6m -1.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 2.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Forced a pair of bad shots in a hurried attempt to get on the board, tanking his value in just two minutes of action. His poor shot selection led directly to empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. The veteran looked a step slow on defensive rotations, compounding the negative impact of his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 2.6m -1.2
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.9m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.4

Severe offensive regression dragged his overall impact deep into the red (-15.4), as forced jumpers and poor shot selection tanked his value. Despite showing decent engagement on the defensive end and making a few hustle plays, the sheer volume of empty possessions proved too costly. He completely lost his rhythm compared to his recent scoring tear, stalling out the half-court offense whenever he isolated.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 35.9m -16.8
Impact -15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 35.9m
24
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

An aggressive downhill mentality fueled a massive scoring surge that broke him out of a recent slump. However, his strong baseline production (+15.1 Box) was heavily diluted in the final impact metric (+4.2), suggesting hidden costs like live-ball turnovers or defensive lapses gave points right back. His ability to consistently puncture the paint defined his night, even if the margins were tighter than his scoring implies.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 35.9m -16.9
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.0

Poor perimeter efficiency and bricked pull-up attempts erased the value of his playmaking. While his raw box score looked decent, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-3.0) due to hidden transition costs and wasted possessions. He struggled to find any rhythm against ball pressure, settling for contested looks late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 32.9m -15.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 32.4m
25
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Efficient slashing and decisive shot selection drove a highly productive offensive outing. He maintained his recent scoring momentum by attacking mismatches on the wing, though his defensive impact (+1.8) was merely passable. The combination of high-percentage looks and steady hustle plays kept his net value firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 32.4m -15.2
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.0

High-energy rotations and active hands generated solid defensive and hustle metrics, but his overall footprint remained negative. A sharp drop-off in scoring aggression compared to his recent hot streak limited his ability to stretch the floor. The lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to sag, neutralizing the value of his off-ball movement.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 30.0m -14.0
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Tenacious point-of-attack defense and elite hustle metrics (+3.6) drove a highly impactful rotation shift. He didn't need a high usage rate to change the game, instead relying on timely closeouts and off-ball activity to disrupt the opponent's flow. His willingness to do the dirty work on the perimeter defined his positive footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 20.6m -9.6
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Shead 18.6m
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Off-the-charts hustle (+9.1) and relentless ball pressure nearly salvaged a disastrous offensive showing. His inability to convert open looks or generate rim pressure severely handicapped the second unit's spacing. He operated as a pure defensive specialist tonight, diving for loose balls to offset his glaring scoring regression.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +9.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 18.6m -8.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a brief but stable presence in the frontcourt, executing his role without forcing the issue. His limited minutes were defined by disciplined positioning and minor hustle plays rather than offensive volume. He kept the ball moving and avoided costly mistakes, resulting in a perfectly neutral stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 10.5m -4.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Surprisingly sturdy defensive rotations (+3.5) kept his head above water during a quiet offensive stint. He failed to replicate his recent shooting efficiency, struggling to find clean releases against tight closeouts. His value was entirely tied to holding his ground on the wing rather than generating points.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 8.8m -4.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A quick burst of shot-making provided a temporary offensive spark, breaking him out of a severe recent shooting slump. However, his total impact remained marginal due to non-existent defensive resistance and a lack of secondary hustle stats. He operated strictly as a floor spacer during his brief cameo, capitalizing on a few clean looks in transition.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 7.7m -3.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A completely invisible shift resulted in a negative net impact, as he failed to register a single meaningful statistic. The veteran simply ate up clock at the end of the rotation without influencing the game on either end of the floor. His inability to generate any gravity or defensive disruption allowed the opposition to play 5-on-4.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.3m -1.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Managed to draw contact and get on the board, but his overall impact was dragged down by structural breakdowns during garbage time. He showed a flash of defensive awareness (+0.9) in his brief run, though it wasn't enough to swing his net rating positive. The short stint was defined by a lack of cohesive team play rather than individual errors.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 3.3m -1.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1