GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.8

Clanked a high volume of perimeter jumpers, which consistently bailed out the defense and fueled opponent transition runs. While his weak-side rim protection remained a bright spot, the sheer number of empty offensive possessions cratered his overall value. He has to find ways to impact the game positively when the outside shot completely abandons him.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 39.9m -22.6
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Amen Thompson 37.9m
24
pts
18
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

Wreaked absolute havoc in the paint through sheer athleticism, generating endless second-chance opportunities via offensive rebounding. His relentless rim pressure collapsed the defense repeatedly, completely masking his lack of perimeter gravity. A pure energy performance that overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 37.9m -21.4
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 36.9m
27
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Picked his spots with surgical precision, punishing late closeouts and operating seamlessly within the half-court flow. His length disrupted several passing lanes on the other end, proving he can still dictate the terms of engagement on both sides of the ball. A highly efficient, veteran performance that anchored the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 36.9m -20.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Reed Sheppard 36.6m
23
pts
2
reb
14
ast
Impact
+21.4

Orchestrated an absolute masterpiece of a game, dissecting the defensive shell with elite vision and punishing under-screens with lethal perimeter shooting. His point-of-attack defense was equally devastating, constantly blowing up dribble hand-offs and forcing live-ball turnovers. A truly dominant two-way clinic that dictated every single facet of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +10.2
Raw total +42.1
Avg player in 36.6m -20.7
Impact +21.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 32.5m
19
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

Carved up the interior defense with elite footwork and relentless activity on the offensive glass. He consistently generated high-quality looks in the post, forcing the defense into foul trouble and collapsing the paint. His physical dominance down low set a punishing physical tone for the entire game.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +4.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 32.5m -18.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 60.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Tari Eason 19.7m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Wild drives into traffic led to blocked shots and transition opportunities going the other way. Despite his trademark high-motor play, his inability to finish through contact or make the right read completely tanked his stint. The chaotic energy worked entirely against him tonight.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 19.7m -11.1
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
1
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Offered zero resistance on the perimeter and failed to space the floor, rendering him a massive liability during his minutes. Opponents actively ignored him on the outside to pack the paint, completely bogging down the half-court offense. A highly forgettable shift where he was invisible on both ends.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 13.9m -8.0
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Injected immediate life into the second unit by confidently stepping into transition jumpers. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages and didn't waste any motion on offense. A perfect spark-plug performance that maximized his limited court time.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +50.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +8.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 13.3m -7.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, leading to defensive breakdowns that forced early rotations. His lack of offensive threat allowed his defender to roam freely, compounding the team's spacing issues. Was quickly subbed out after failing to establish any physical presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 6.5m -3.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Barely broke a sweat in a brief cameo appearance at the end of a quarter. Didn't have enough time to register any meaningful impact on the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.6m -1.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 45.0m
32
pts
21
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.6

Utterly dominated the painted area on both ends of the floor, anchoring the defensive shell while cleaning the glass with ruthless efficiency. His sheer physical presence overwhelmed the frontline, generating massive value through second-chance opportunities and elite rim deterrence. An absolute masterclass in paint enforcement that dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.0m
Offense +29.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +43.0
Avg player in 45.0m -25.4
Impact +17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 38.5m
25
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Shot selection dragged down his overall efficiency, as he repeatedly settled for heavily contested perimeter looks instead of pressuring the rim. Despite the cold shooting from deep, he managed to salvage a marginally positive net impact through surprisingly engaged point-of-attack defense. The high-volume scoring masked how many empty possessions he created during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 38.5m -21.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Broke out of a severe shooting slump by hunting catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners and punishing late rotations. While his perimeter spacing stretched the defense to its breaking point, his overall impact was slightly muted by defensive limitations in isolation. Still, the sudden scoring burst was the primary catalyst for the offense's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 37.8m -21.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 37.0m
15
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.4

The raw playmaking volume was completely negated by a disastrous overall impact driven by poor shot selection and costly live-ball turnovers. Settling for heavily contested outside shots disrupted the offensive flow and allowed the opponent to consistently leak out in transition. His usual point-of-attack pressure couldn't offset the massive damage done by his erratic offensive decision-making.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 37.0m -20.9
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 31.5m
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Continued his streak of highly efficient shooting by attacking closeouts with purpose and making quick decisions. His positive impact was heavily buoyed by strong hustle metrics, keeping possessions alive on the margins through relentless off-ball movement. A reliable complementary performance that stabilized the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 31.5m -17.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Defensive lapses severely undercut his highly efficient offensive output around the basket. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points that completely negated his timely cuts to the rim. A classic case of giving back everything he provided on the scoring end through poor rotational awareness.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -36.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 20.2m -11.4
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.6

Looked hesitant and completely passed up open looks, resulting in a stagnant offense when he was on the floor. His inability to bend the defense or create advantages allowed the opposition to load up on the primary scorers. A passive outing that actively hurt the team's spacing and offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 14.5m -8.2
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 7.1m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Provided a brief but stable burst of energy off the bench, highlighted by active hands and solid rotational hustle. He didn't force the issue offensively, moving the ball quickly to keep the defense shifting side to side. Exactly the kind of low-mistake, high-effort minutes needed from a deep rotation guard.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -86.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 7.1m -3.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Barely saw the floor and struggled to get up to the speed of the game during his brief stint. A complete lack of offensive involvement and missed defensive rotations led to a quick hook from the coaching staff. The game simply moved too fast for him to establish any physical presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -120.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 4.6m -2.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Forced several bad shots in a chaotic stint that immediately derailed the team's momentum. The erratic shot selection and poor floor spacing forced the coach to abandon his rotation spot almost instantly. Sometimes trying to do too much in limited time backfires completely.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 3.7m -2.0
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0