GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 40.5m
19
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.4

Relentless rim pressure created constant defensive collapses, though his impact was muted by poor spacing when he operated off the ball. A tendency to gamble in the passing lanes occasionally compromised the team's shell defense. His physical downhill drives defined his minutes, even if the overall net rating remained modest.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 40.5m -18.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
22
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find soft spots in the midrange, boosting his offensive efficiency. However, a handful of ill-advised fouls in transition slightly undercut his overall net positive. His ability to anchor the weak-side glass against bigger matchups remained a stabilizing force.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 40.1m -17.9
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kevin Durant 37.3m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.9

A string of live-ball turnovers and forced contested mid-range jumpers completely derailed the offensive flow. Opponents ruthlessly targeted his lack of transition urgency, turning his giveaways into easy fast-break points. The scoring volume was entirely hollow, as his poor decision-making cratered the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 37.3m -16.6
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 7
S Tari Eason 33.1m
5
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

An erratic shot selection featuring wildly contested drives torpedoed his offensive impact. He tried to compensate by crashing the offensive glass with reckless abandon, generating massive hustle metrics. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his undeniable chaotic energy.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 33.1m -14.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Clint Capela 26.3m
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Benefited from spoon-fed drop-off passes for easy finishes, but gave the value right back by repeatedly biting on pump fakes. His inability to navigate screens allowed opposing guards to feast in the floater range. The offensive spike was a mirage that hid consistent positional mistakes on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 26.3m -11.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Cold perimeter shooting and hesitancy against closeouts stalled the offensive rhythm during his shifts. While he competed hard fighting over screens, he was frequently overpowered by larger wings in isolation. The inability to stretch the floor ultimately condensed the paint for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 30.9m -13.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Knocked down a pair of timely corner threes, but was repeatedly burned on backdoor cuts when ball-watching. His defensive rotations were a half-step slow, leading to costly fouls that bailed out stagnant opponent possessions. The scoring uptick couldn't mask the underlying lapses in team defensive concepts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 24.2m -10.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Provided an immediate jolt of perimeter resistance, completely locking down his primary assignment in a short burst. His aggressive ball denial disrupted the opponent's set plays and forced late-clock scrambles. Even without attempting a shot, his defensive intensity justified his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -52.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 7.5m -3.3
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 40.2m
15
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

An abysmal perimeter shooting night severely dragged down his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced contested looks late in the clock. He salvaged a positive overall rating entirely through relentless point-of-attack defense and fighting through screens. His willingness to shadow the opposing primary creator prevented his cold streak from becoming a total liability.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +10.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 40.2m -17.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 39.6m
36
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.7

Masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages generated high-quality looks all night, driving a massive box score impact. He consistently punished switches by hunting favorable matchups in isolation, breaking down the defense at will. Active hands in the passing lanes also contributed to a surprisingly robust defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.6%
USG% 37.1%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 39.6m -17.5
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Marcus Smart 36.0m
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

A rare scoring surge masked severe defensive breakdowns at the point of attack, bleeding value on the other end. Constant over-helping left shooters wide open, completely negating his impressive hustle metrics. The overall impact cratered due to these undisciplined gambles against opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense -2.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 36.0m -16.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S LeBron James 33.4m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.0

Calculated defensive rotations anchored the frontcourt, reflected in a strong positive defensive impact. However, settling for perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the rim capped his overall ceiling. His ability to dictate the tempo in the half-court remained the defining feature of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.4m -14.9
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 27.2m
7
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.8

Embraced a gritty interior role despite a sharp drop in scoring volume, focusing entirely on rim protection and rebounding. Wall-ups in the paint deterred multiple drives, driving a highly positive defensive score. This unselfish pivot to dirty work proved essential during a sluggish offensive outing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 27.2m -12.1
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Passive off-ball movement and a failure to secure contested rebounds allowed opponents to dominate second-chance opportunities. His reluctance to close out hard on perimeter shooters resulted in a negative overall impact despite efficient finishing around the rim. He simply floated through his minutes without leaving a physical imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 23.0m -10.2
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 17.0m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his value, as he passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities to swing the ball. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which destroyed the team's spacing during his stints. Without his gravity as a shooter, the half-court offense ground to a halt.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 17.0m -7.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 12.2m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.2

Transformed the game's energy in a brief stint by diving for loose balls and generating crucial deflections. His flawless weak-side defensive rotations blew up multiple opponent actions, driving an elite impact score in limited action. This chaotic, high-motor stretch completely derailed the opposing offense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.4%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.1
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 12.2m -5.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaxson Hayes 11.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Struggled to establish deep post position, rendering him an offensive non-factor during his brief rotation minutes. He did manage to alter a few shots at the rim as a weak-side helper, keeping his defensive metrics afloat. Ultimately, his inability to finish through contact limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 11.6m -5.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0