GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 42.0m
26
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.6

Relentless downhill attacking and elite perimeter defense culminated in a massive positive impact score. He completely overwhelmed his matchups with sheer athleticism, generating high-percentage looks at the rim while suffocating ball-handlers on the other end. This two-way dominance dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +38.1
Avg player in 42.0m -23.5
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

Defensive struggles and mistimed rotations dragged his overall impact into the red despite a respectable scoring output. Opposing forwards consistently exploited his positioning in the half-court, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making. His inability to string together stops proved costly during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 38.4m -21.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 37.7m
18
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.9

An uncharacteristic lack of shot volume severely hampered his team's offensive ceiling, resulting in a surprisingly poor net rating. While his individual efficiency and defensive metrics were solid, his reluctance to take over the game allowed the opposing defense to dictate the tempo. The offense stagnated whenever he deferred to secondary options.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 37.7m -21.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Alperen Sengun 37.1m
27
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+12.0

Masterful orchestration from the high post drove a dominant positive rating, as he consistently carved up the defense with elite decision-making. His highly efficient interior finishing forced double teams, which he immediately punished by finding open cutters. This sustained offensive brilliance masked any minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +27.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 37.1m -20.7
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tari Eason 31.6m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Tremendous defensive energy and relentless hustle plays were entirely undone by erratic shot selection. He forced numerous contested looks in the paint, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. His offensive inefficiency ultimately outweighed the havoc he wreaked on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +6.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 31.6m -17.7
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

Poor shot selection and a string of forced perimeter attempts severely damaged his overall impact. Struggling to find his rhythm, he repeatedly stalled offensive possessions by settling for contested jumpers early in the shot clock. Even solid defensive effort couldn't compensate for the momentum-killing misses.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 27.4m -15.3
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Okogie 13.6m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

A pure energy injection off the bench resulted in a stellar net rating during his brief stint. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm with aggressive point-of-attack defense and diving for loose balls. His willingness to embrace a gritty, low-usage role perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 13.6m -7.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Failed to establish any rhythm during a brief rotational appearance, leading to a slightly negative impact score. He was largely bypassed in the offensive sets and struggled to make a tangible mark on the defensive glass. A lack of overall activity rendered his minutes mostly empty.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -57.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 9.5m -5.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A fleeting appearance yielded a negative score due to a quick succession of defensive breakdowns while he was on the floor. He was targeted in pick-and-roll coverage immediately upon checking in, forcing a rapid substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 38.5m
14
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.8

A steep drop in scoring aggression severely limited his overall effectiveness, resulting in a surprisingly poor net impact. Rather than attacking the paint as usual, he settled into a passive perimeter role that disrupted the team's offensive flow. Defensive lapses on the perimeter further compounded his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 38.5m -21.5
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 37.7m
40
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
+6.5

Relentless perimeter volume drove a strong positive rating, as his heavy diet of step-back jumpers stretched the defense to its breaking point. While the efficiency wasn't pristine, the sheer gravitational pull of his scoring threat opened up the floor for secondary actions. He supplemented the scoring load with active defensive rotations that boosted his overall value.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 7/17 (41.2%)
FT 9/14 (64.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.2%
USG% 45.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 37.7m -21.0
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S LeBron James 34.1m
30
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.0

A near-flawless shooting display fueled a massive positive impact score, as he surgically picked apart the defense without wasting possessions. This aggressive offensive takeover marked a stark departure from his recent passive stretches. His ability to generate high-value looks at the rim made him virtually unguardable.

Shooting
FG 13/14 (92.9%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 97.9%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 34.1m -19.0
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 33.8m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Elite defensive metrics and high-activity hustle plays couldn't salvage a severely negative overall impact. The damage was done entirely on the offensive end, where forced perimeter shots and a lack of scoring gravity stalled the half-court offense. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 33.8m -19.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 33.7m
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Exceptional shot selection around the basket drove a steady positive impact, continuing a highly efficient streak of finishing. He anchored the interior effectively, taking only high-percentage looks and punishing smaller defenders in the post. This disciplined approach maximized his offensive value without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 33.7m -18.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Hyper-efficient spot-up shooting wasn't quite enough to push his overall impact into the green. He played a strictly complementary role, rarely forcing the issue but failing to leave a significant imprint on the game's momentum. A lack of secondary playmaking or rebounding aggression kept his net rating hovering near neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 20.6m -11.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Kennard 17.7m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Extreme offensive passivity cratered his net impact despite respectable defensive metrics. By turning down open catch-and-shoot opportunities, he allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. His reluctance to let it fly completely negated his value as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 17.7m -9.9
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaxson Hayes 13.6m
1
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his rating during a brief stint on the floor. Failing to register a single field goal attempt, he provided zero rim pressure and allowed the opposing frontcourt to rest on defense. Even a few energetic defensive rotations couldn't mask his total lack of scoring threat.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.4%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +34.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 13.6m -7.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 10.3m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Maximized a short rotation stint with decisive cuts and active defensive hands, generating a highly positive net rating. He immediately matched the game's physicality, providing a noticeable spark of energy off the bench. His willingness to do the dirty work in the margins paid immediate dividends.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 10.3m -5.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0