GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 31.9m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Downhill pressure and suffocating point-of-attack defense drove a phenomenal two-way performance. By completely ignoring the three-point line, he forced his way into high-percentage looks at the rim. His relentless motor in transition constantly put the opposing defense on its heels.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 70.2%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 31.9m -18.0
Impact +8.3
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 30.4m
25
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.5

Surgical shot creation and elite efficiency formed the backbone of a highly impactful shift. He punished defensive rotations with perfectly timed jumpers while remaining highly engaged on the less glamorous end of the floor. This two-way clinic stabilized the starting unit during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +40.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 30.4m -16.9
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Reed Sheppard 28.6m
12
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.1

Perimeter marksmanship and active hands defined a solid, if unspectacular, outing. He generated all of his scoring value from beyond the arc, though struggles finishing inside the paint capped his offensive ceiling. Strong rotational defense ensured he remained a net positive despite the two-point misses.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +41.6
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 28.6m -15.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Alperen Sengun 27.6m
19
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite maintaining a highly efficient touch around the basket, defensive lapses ultimately pulled his net score into the red. He operated beautifully in the post but struggled to anchor the paint on the other end. The lack of rim protection allowed opponents to match his offensive output too easily.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 27.6m -15.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Heavy reliance on the three-point shot yielded mixed results, ultimately flattening his overall impact. While his perimeter spacing was valuable, a slew of missed contested twos dragged down his offensive efficiency. Solid defensive rotations managed to keep his net rating hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +27.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 24.0m -13.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 21.9m
16
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

A massive spike in offensive efficiency propelled his positive rating in a superb bench role. He punished closeouts and finished cleanly, taking excellent care of his shot selection. This offensive burst completely covered up a relatively quiet night in the hustle and defensive categories.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +38.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 21.9m -12.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

High-energy playmaking was unfortunately negated by defensive vulnerabilities. While he knocked down a couple of timely perimeter shots, he struggled to contain his matchup on the other end of the floor. The resulting defensive bleed slightly outweighed his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 17.5m -9.8
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Clint Capela 13.1m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Defensive anchoring and rim deterrence were the sole drivers of his highly positive short shift. He required almost zero offensive touches to make his mark, instead focusing entirely on altering shots and securing the paint. This specialized role-playing provided a crucial defensive boost for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +57.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 13.1m -7.3
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Opportunistic cutting and efficient finishing fueled a surprising offensive surge off the bench. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns to score well above his usual rate without forcing bad looks. This disciplined approach maximized his limited minutes and provided a steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 12.0m -6.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Made an immediate impact as a defensive specialist during a brief stint on the floor. His ability to blow up actions and apply ball pressure completely shifted the momentum. He played flawlessly within his role, taking only one high-percentage shot and focusing entirely on disruption.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +87.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 9.9m -5.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Broke out of a recent shooting slump with a highly efficient cameo appearance. By knocking down open looks in the flow of the offense, he provided instant spacing value. He didn't need to do much defensively because his quick offensive burst already tipped the scales in his favor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 9.2m -5.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 7.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

A complete lack of production on both ends resulted in a disastrously negative short shift. He forced empty possessions with poor shot selection and offered zero resistance defensively. Continuing a troubling scoreless streak, his presence actively hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 7.3m -4.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 6.7m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Maximized garbage-time minutes with relentless energy and perfect offensive execution. Drawing fouls and converting his only field goal attempt made him a highly efficient spark plug. His active motor ensured his brief time on the court was overwhelmingly positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 6.7m -3.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 38.3m
27
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

Relentless interior attacking fueled a massive offensive surge that easily outpaced his recent production. By completely abandoning the three-point line, he found highly efficient scoring zones inside the arc. This downhill aggression masked a relatively quiet defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -35.8
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 38.3m -21.4
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.1

A sharp dip in scoring efficiency severely punished his overall rating. While he remained active in passing lanes and on the glass, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the halfcourt attack. His inability to find a rhythm from deep ultimately overshadowed a respectable defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 33.4m -18.7
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Ace Bailey 32.6m
22
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his negative overall impact despite a hefty scoring bump. Forcing too many low-quality looks from deep eroded the value of his otherwise solid hustle metrics. He gave back almost everything he created offensively with a non-existent defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 32.6m -18.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S John Konchar 30.4m
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

An abysmal shooting night dragged down an otherwise stellar defensive effort. He bricked away his offensive value by failing to capitalize on open looks, falling well below his recent scoring averages. His perimeter containment (+6.7 Def) was the only thing keeping his overall impact from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 30.4m -17.0
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kyle Filipowski 30.3m
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Continued his streak of highly efficient interior finishing, though his impact was slightly muted by empty trips from beyond the arc. His reliable touch around the basket stabilized the frontcourt rotation. Chipping in solid defensive positioning kept his overall rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 30.3m -16.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bez Mbeng 28.8m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Elite defensive disruption and high-motor plays couldn't salvage a completely barren offensive outing. He was a total non-factor with the ball in his hands, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The resulting 4-on-5 halfcourt offense ultimately outweighed his stellar perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 28.8m -16.1
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-18.2

Completely imploded on the offensive end with a disastrous shooting performance that tanked his net impact. Failing to convert on drives or jumpers destroyed the team's spacing and offensive flow. With no defensive resistance to fall back on, his floor time was highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -43.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.0
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 24.8m -14.0
Impact -18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.7

Utter dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He capitalized on every interior touch, extending a streak of highly efficient finishing while anchoring the glass. This physical mismatch overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt and provided a massive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 21.4m -11.9
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2