HOU

2025-26 Season

AMEN THOMPSON

Houston Rockets | Guard-Forward | 6-7
Amen Thompson
18.0 PPG
7.8 RPG
5.3 APG
37.3 MPG
+2.4 Impact

Thompson produces at an above average rate for a 37-minute workload. Elite defensive value (+3.6/game) is a major strength.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.4
Scoring +11.9
Points 18.0 PPG × +1.00 = +18.0
Missed 2PT 5.1/g × -0.78 = -4.0
Missed 3PT 1.2/g × -0.87 = -1.0
Missed FT 1.1/g × -1.00 = -1.1
Creation +5.1
Assists 5.3/g × +0.50 = +2.6
Off. Rebounds 2.0/g × +1.26 = +2.5
Turnovers -4.7
Turnovers 2.4/g × -1.95 = -4.7
Defense +3.6
Steals 1.4/g × +2.30 = +3.2
Blocks 0.6/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 5.9/g × +0.30 = +1.8
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.3
Contested Shots 3.8/g × +0.20 = +0.8
Deflections 2.5/g × +0.65 = +1.6
Loose Balls 0.9/g × +0.60 = +0.5
Screen Assists 0.5/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.3
Raw Impact +19.2
Baseline (game-average expected) −16.8
Net Impact
+2.4
89th pctl vs Guards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 85th
18.0 PPG
Efficiency 79th
58.8% TS
Playmaking 84th
5.3 APG
Rebounding 99th
7.8 RPG
Rim Protection 73th
0.14/min
Hustle 31th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 36th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Amen Thompson’s start to the 2025-26 campaign was defined by a chaotic tug-of-war between relentless downhill dominance and glaring perimeter limitations. When his outside shot betrayed him, the hidden costs were steep. During the 12/01 vs UTA matchup, he poured in 23 points, yet posted a -1.5 impact score because his 0-for-3 mark from deep allowed defenders to pack the paint and stall the broader offensive engine. Conversely, Thompson found ways to tilt the floor even when his scoring volume dipped. On 11/19 vs CLE, he managed just 12 points but generated a stellar +5.7 impact by suffocating opponents with relentless ball pressure and blowing up passing lanes. When he successfully married that defensive intensity with aggressive rim pressure, the results were devastating. He completely shattered the defense on 11/05 vs MEM, racking up 28 points and 10 rebounds to drive a massive +12.2 impact score. The raw athleticism is undeniable, but his ultimate value still hinges entirely on opposing defenses actually respecting his jump shot.

Amen Thompson’s second quarter of the season was defined by a chaotic tug-of-war between his elite athletic gifts and his reckless decision-making. When he attacked with purpose, he was utterly unguardable, as seen on 12/05 vs PHX when his relentless downhill pressure and finishing through contact generated a massive +13.0 impact score. Yet, that brilliant aggression frequently morphed into sheer stubbornness. During a brutal 12/06 vs DAL outing, forced drives into heavy traffic yielded just 7 points and dragged him down to a disastrous -13.9 impact mark. Even when his offensive rhythm completely vanished, Thompson still found ways to tilt the floor. On 01/15 vs OKC, he shot a miserable 4-for-16 from the field, but elite defensive disruption and hustle plays salvaged a +2.2 impact score despite his wild, out-of-control drives. He remains a spectacular transition terror, but his ultimate value depends on learning when to stop crashing into congested paint areas.

This twenty-game stretch was a volatile tug-of-war between Amen Thompson's overwhelming physical gifts and his glaring lack of perimeter gravity. When defenders dared him to shoot, the results were often disastrous, perfectly illustrated on 02/28 vs MIA. Despite stuffing the box score with 20 points and 11 rebounds, he posted a dismal -8.1 impact score because he stubbornly forced contested shots inside and finished inefficiently. Yet, Thompson remains a singular talent capable of tilting the floor without needing to score. During the 01/29 vs ATL matchup, he managed just nine points but still generated a +4.4 impact by unleashing pure chaos as a defensive disruptor. By early March, he finally found the perfect formula for his downhill aggression against sagging coverages. He absolutely terrorized the restricted area on 03/06 vs POR, pouring in 26 points on near-perfect 11-of-12 shooting to register a staggering +22.5 impact score.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Thompson's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~6 points per game.

Reliable shooter — hits 45%+ from the field in 70% of games. You can count on efficient nights more often than not.

Defensive difference-maker. Thompson consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: +1.5, second-half: +3.3. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Hot right now — 4 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 6 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 74 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

S. Castle 80.4 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 11
B. Mathurin 76.0 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 9
T. Hardaway Jr. 71.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 12
D. DiVincenzo 70.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 8
C. McCollum 68.2 poss
FG% 64.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 19
J. Murray 62.9 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 10
R. Westbrook 60.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 16
N. Marshall 57.7 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
L. Markkanen 56.5 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 8
M. Christie 54.3 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 17

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

J. Murray 100.2 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 14
D. Fox 98.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 13
A. Reaves 72.5 poss
FG% 22.2%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 5
T. Herro 71.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 13
C. Flagg 70.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.07
PTS 5
D. Avdija 68.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 14
B. Mathurin 68.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 10
R. Westbrook 66.4 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.14
PTS 9
J. Brunson 66.2 poss
FG% 11.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.03
PTS 2
K. Leonard 65.1 poss
FG% 52.9%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.29
PTS 19

SEASON STATS

74
Games
18.0
PPG
7.8
RPG
5.3
APG
1.4
SPG
0.6
BPG
52.5
FG%
22.5
3P%
78.2
FT%
37.3
MPG

GAME LOG

74 games played