GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 41.5m
20
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.4

Highly efficient finishing and relentless rim pressure fueled a robust positive impact (+25.2 Box). He consistently broke down the primary point of attack, collapsing the defense to create high-quality looks for himself and his teammates.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.5m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 41.5m -22.6
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

Poor perimeter shot selection significantly hampered his overall value. The sheer volume of missed threes negated the benefits of his strong rebounding effort, as empty offensive possessions allowed the opposition to build momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 36.9m -20.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kevin Durant 36.7m
16
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.6

A massive drop in scoring efficiency compared to his usual standards drove a heavily negative score. Settling for heavily contested midrange jumpers rather than getting to his preferred spots stalled the offensive engine and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 36.7m -20.1
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Alperen Sengun 36.0m
22
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless work on the glass and high-level defensive activity (+8.8) kept his impact positive despite a massive volume of missed shots inside. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities by outmuscling opponents in the paint, masking his inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +8.8
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 36.0m -19.7
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
S Josh Okogie 21.1m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

A surprising burst of offensive production kept his box metrics positive, but a lack of defensive disruption held his overall impact slightly below neutral. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, giving back the value he created on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 21.1m -11.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

A dip in scoring volume and poor shot quality resulted in a negative overall showing. He struggled to establish an offensive rhythm against aggressive perimeter pressure, leading to stagnant possessions and forced looks.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 26.0m -14.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Steven Adams 17.9m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Physical screen-setting and stout interior defense (+6.5) anchored his positive minutes. He did the necessary dirty work inside, absorbing contact to stabilize the frontcourt rotation during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 17.9m -9.9
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Hot perimeter shooting provided a necessary offensive spark off the bench. He capitalized on defensive rotations by knocking down open catch-and-shoot looks, stretching the floor effectively without turning the ball over.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 17.4m -9.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Maximized a brief rotational stint with efficient rim-running and finishing. He provided a quick burst of interior scoring by exploiting gaps in the pick-and-roll coverage before returning to the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 6.5m -3.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 40.8m
24
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.3

Impact was buoyed entirely by elite defensive metrics (+13.6) and active hustle (+5.2) despite a high volume of missed shots. The sheer number of clanked perimeter jumpers dragged down his offensive value, but his ability to disrupt passing lanes on the other end kept the overall score highly positive.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +13.6
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 40.8m -22.3
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
S James Harden 40.4m
22
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.0

Heavy reliance on isolation plays led to a barrage of missed shots, neutralizing his otherwise solid defensive metrics (+7.3). The forced offensive load stalled ball movement, resulting in a negative overall impact despite his playmaking efforts.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 40.4m -22.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ivica Zubac 34.5m
33
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+26.2

Unstoppable execution around the rim generated a massive +32.9 box score impact. He systematically dismantled the interior defense, converting nearly every paint touch into high-percentage points to anchor the team's success.

Shooting
FG 13/14 (92.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 87.6%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +32.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +45.1
Avg player in 34.5m -18.9
Impact +26.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 48.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 25.8m
9
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Active hustle (+5.7) and a surprising scoring surge couldn't overcome the structural issues during his minutes. His overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive breakdowns on the perimeter that allowed opponents to capitalize on open looks.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 25.8m -14.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S John Collins 23.5m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

A complete failure to secure the glass as a frontcourt player cratered his overall value. While his defensive metrics were passable, his inability to end defensive possessions allowed opponents to dominate second-chance opportunities during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 23.5m -12.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Offensive invisibility and a lack of defensive disruption (-9.4 Total) made him a liability on the floor. Opponents easily bypassed his perimeter containment, while his reluctance to shoot allowed defenders to aggressively help off him.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 27.8m -15.2
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Efficient spot-up shooting within the flow of the offense provided a marginal positive boost. By capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities without forcing bad looks, he stabilized the perimeter rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 24.4m -13.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Brook Lopez 13.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Solid rim protection (+3.6 Def) was completely overshadowed by his offensive absence. The lack of scoring gravity from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag into the paint, clogging driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 13.5m -7.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Total offensive passivity during his brief stint tanked his overall score. Refusing to pressure the defense allowed opponents to dictate the tempo entirely while he was on the floor, bleeding value in transition.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -58.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 9.3m -5.1
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2