Houston Rockets

Western Conference

Houston
Rockets

HC Ime Udoka

54-34
L1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Kevin Durant
Forward Yr 18 79G (79S)
+15.8
25.9 pts
5.5 reb
4.8 ast
36.5 min

This late-season stretch was defined by a ruthless, hyper-efficient scoring clinic. Durant absolutely torched the nets on 02/26 vs ORL, dropping 40 points in 40 minutes to generate a massive +38.2 Impact score through relentless, high-volume shot creation. He was even more surgical on 03/10 vs TOR. Needing just 16 shot attempts to amass 29 points, he posted a +37.2 Impact score because he completely eliminated bad shots and punished every defensive rotation. Yet, even an all-time great has nights where the engine sputters. During the 03/16 vs LAL game, he managed just 18 points and two assists across 37 minutes. This passive outing resulted in a -3.6 Impact score, as his uncharacteristic lack of aggressive rim pressure and stagnant ball movement dragged down the entire offense.

Alperen Sengun
Center Yr 4 78G (78S)
+12.8
20.4 pts
9.0 reb
6.1 ast
33.7 min

This late-season stretch was defined by Alperen Sengun realizing his full potential as an offensive fulcrum, oscillating between absolute dominance and occasional bouts of erratic shot selection. He completely dismantled the defense on 03/23 vs CHI, logging a massive +37.4 Impact score by pairing surgical efficiency—hitting 16 of his 19 shots—with brilliant passing to finish with 33 points, 13 boards, and 10 assists. However, his aggressive mindset occasionally backfired when his touch abandoned him. During the 03/05 vs GSW matchup, he tallied a healthy 17 points and 7 assists, but his -5.1 Impact score revealed the hidden cost of empty possessions and forcing heavily contested looks to finish just 8-for-20 from the floor. Conversely, he found ways to salvage rough scoring nights through sheer effort and rebounding. On 04/07 vs PHX, a miserable 5-for-15 shooting night yielded only 12 points. Yet, he still squeezed out a +0.6 Impact in that contest by crashing the glass for 14 rebounds and keeping the half-court offense flowing with 6 assists.

Amen Thompson
Guard-Forward Yr 2 85G (85S)
+12.7
18.3 pts
7.7 reb
5.3 ast
37.9 min

Relentless, paint-collapsing rim pressure and two-way havoc defined this late-season stretch for Amen Thompson. He reached an absolute crescendo on Apr 10 vs MIN, dropping 41 points on 17-of-22 shooting to generate a staggering +25.9 impact score. That massive number stemmed directly from his unbelievable ability to finish through contact, yielding a dominant +45.1 offensive impact rating. His relentless off-ball movement and high-energy hustle plays drove immense value even when he wasn't the primary scorer, perfectly illustrated on Mar 29 vs NOP where a modest 14 points still yielded a +12.9 impact. Yet, his glaring lack of a jumper continues to create severe offensive friction against certain schemes. Despite scoring a solid 19 points on Apr 09 vs PHI, he suffered a brutal -7.4 impact score because his complete inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag and clog the paint. He is a terrifying downhill force. However, that missing perimeter threat remains the only thing keeping him from total offensive mastery.

Jabari Smith Jr.
Forward Yr 3 83G (83S)
+7.7
15.9 pts
7.0 reb
1.9 ast
35.6 min

This late-season stretch was defined by extreme volatility, with Jabari Smith Jr. oscillating wildly between untouchable sniper and offensive black hole. He reached his absolute peak on 02/23 vs UTA. Dropping 31 points on a blistering 12-for-17 from the floor, his elite shot selection fueled a massive +27.2 Impact score. Yet, his tunnel vision frequently betrayed him, a flaw glaringly obvious during the 04/09 vs PHI matchup. Despite scoring a respectable 19 points, his abysmal 1-for-7 shooting from beyond the arc and complete failure to register a single assist dragged his Impact score down to a costly -5.7. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to salvage rough shooting nights through sheer grit on the glass. During the 04/18 vs LAL contest, Smith shot an ugly 5-for-14 from the field but still posted a stellar +19.6 Impact score because he relentlessly attacked the boards to grab 12 crucial rebounds.

Steven Adams
Center Yr 12 32G (11S)
+2.8
5.8 pts
8.6 reb
1.5 ast
22.8 min

This eleven-game stretch was defined by Adams's fluctuating role as a spot-starter, where he delivered a masterclass in doing the dirty work without demanding the basketball. On 01/16 vs OKC, he posted a massive +11.6 impact score off the bench despite scoring just six points. That outsized value came entirely from his relentless presence on the glass, as he vacuumed up 11 rebounds and punished smaller defenders in the paint. He offered a similarly bruising performance on 01/08 vs POR, logging a +7.2 impact while adding four assists to his 11 boards. However, his value plummets when he cannot establish that physical dominance. During a brief 14-minute stint on 12/24 vs LAC, Adams managed just four rebounds and two points, resulting in a dismal -7.5 impact score. As long as he is setting bone-crushing screens and controlling the boards, his total lack of scoring remains entirely irrelevant.

Tari Eason
Forward Yr 3 66G (38S)
+2.7
10.8 pts
6.3 reb
1.5 ast
26.4 min

Extreme volatility and a jarring demotion to the bench defined this chaotic stretch of the season for Tari Eason. When his shot selection abandoned him, he became an active detriment on the floor. This was painfully obvious during the 03/13 vs NOP matchup, where he managed just four points on a dismal 2/11 from the field to generate a brutal -15.0 Impact score. His offensive disappearing acts reached rock bottom during the 04/10 vs MIN contest. Eason went completely scoreless in 24 minutes, posting a catastrophic -20.8 Impact because he offered virtually no offensive gravity to offset his utter passivity. Yet, just when you wanted to write him off, he would suddenly flip the switch into a highly efficient two-way terror. Coming off the bench in the 04/18 vs LAL game, Eason was flawless on his way to 16 points and 10 rebounds, hitting all seven of his shot attempts to post a massive +23.3 Impact score.

Reed Sheppard
Guard Yr 1 88G (26S)
+2.1
13.4 pts
2.8 reb
3.5 ast
26.6 min

Wild inconsistency and erratic shot selection defined this late-season stretch for Reed Sheppard. He oscillated wildly between orchestrating offensive masterpieces and shooting his team out of games entirely. When he dialed in his playmaking, the results were spectacular, peaking on Mar 21 vs MIA when he dissected the defense for 23 points and 14 assists to post a massive +22.9 impact score. Yet, his trigger-happy tendencies often became a severe liability. On Mar 08 vs SAS, he tallied a respectable 17 points but registered a disastrous -19.9 impact score. That severe negative value stemmed entirely from atrocious shot selection, as he repeatedly forced contested perimeter looks early in the clock and derailed the team's rhythm. Fortunately, during the Apr 09 vs PHI matchup, he scored a measly 6 points but still salvaged a +0.9 overall impact. Instead of forcing bad shots, he relied on surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense (+5.0 defensive impact) to keep his minutes firmly in the green.

Clint Capela
Center Yr 11 79G (3S)
-4.3
3.6 pts
4.5 reb
0.6 ast
12.0 min

This late-season stretch was defined by a steep decline into deep-bench irrelevance for Clint Capela, interrupted only by a handful of bizarrely dominant flashes. His brutal -15.6 Impact score on 04/07 vs PHX captured his baseline struggles perfectly. He forced up five shots in ten minutes, bricking four of them, and his inability to secure more than three rebounds made him a massive negative on the floor. Yet, he occasionally found ways to tilt the game without scoring, as seen during a +7.5 Impact performance on 03/29 vs NOP. Despite managing just six points, Capela dominated the glass by hoovering up 14 rebounds in a mere 16 minutes to create crucial second-chance opportunities. Then came an absolute anomaly on 04/12 vs MEM. Thrust into the starting lineup, he exploded for 23 points and 13 boards—even hitting a rare three-pointer—to generate a staggering +26.8 Impact score by completely overwhelming the interior defense. Outside of those fleeting moments of vintage production, the veteran big man mostly looked like a player aging out of a nightly rotation.

Josh Okogie
Guard Yr 7 84G (34S)
-5.5
4.5 pts
2.5 reb
0.9 ast
17.4 min

Josh Okogie’s late-season stretch was defined by a jarring role change that ruthlessly exposed his offensive limitations. He initially thrived as a situational pest off the bench, locking down his primary assignment to post a +1.4 impact score despite scoring zero points on Mar 16 vs LAL. That relentless perimeter resistance eventually earned him a spot in the starting lineup. The promotion peaked on Apr 09 vs PHI, where he grabbed 11 rebounds and generated crucial second-chance opportunities on the glass for a massive +5.2 impact. However, the experiment crashed violently the very next night. Logging 27 minutes on Apr 10 vs MIN, Okogie suffered a catastrophic -11.9 impact score because his complete offensive futility—failing to hit a single field goal—allowed defenders to entirely ignore him and ruin the team's spacing. While his hustle remains valuable in microscopic doses, asking him to play heavy starter minutes is a clear recipe for offensive stagnation.

Isaiah Crawford
Forward Yr 1 14G
-6.3
2.0 pts
1.1 reb
0.4 ast
6.6 min
Aaron Holiday
Guard Yr 7 63G (1S)
-6.3
5.2 pts
1.0 reb
1.0 ast
13.5 min

This late-season stretch was defined by a brutal, prolonged offensive freeze that made Aaron Holiday nearly unplayable off the bench. The wheels completely fell off during the 03/11 vs DEN matchup, where he hoisted up terrible looks to finish 1-for-10 from the field, dragging the second unit down with a miserable -17.0 impact score. Even when his perimeter shots actually fell, his minutes often hurt the team. During the 03/20 vs ATL game, he hit three triples for 9 points but still posted a -7.2 impact, as his lack of playmaking and defensive lapses bled away any value his scoring provided. He finally found a brief rhythm on 04/07 vs PHX, tallying 12 points on sharp 4-of-6 shooting to earn a rare +2.7 impact score by providing a genuine, efficient offensive spark. Unfortunately, that flash faded quickly. He closed out the stretch with an empty cardio session on 04/18 vs LAL, missing all four of his shots and grabbing zero rebounds to record a catastrophic -18.6 impact.

Jae'Sean Tate
Forward Yr 5 51G (1S)
-7.0
2.7 pts
1.6 reb
0.5 ast
8.5 min

Jae'Sean Tate spent the late winter and early spring of the 2025-26 season marooned at the end of the rotation, battling irrelevance in a string of empty-calorie cameos. During a brutal 04/01 vs MIL appearance, he posted a dismal -14.4 Impact score after failing to record a single counting stat in three minutes of pure cardio. His brief stints were consistently dragged down by offensive invisibility and a complete inability to generate secondary statistics. Even when he found the bottom of the net on 02/19 vs CHA, hitting three of his four shots for seven points, his Impact still sat in the red at -1.8 because he failed to secure a single rebound. Relief finally arrived when he was thrust into the starting lineup on 04/12 vs MEM. Given a massive 26-minute leash, Tate racked up 13 points and six boards, earning a +2.8 Impact score by pairing efficient finishing with relentless hustle and defensive disruption. Unfortunately, that lone bright spot was a jarring anomaly in a stretch where his aggressive energy rarely translated into winning basketball.

JD Davison
Guard Yr 3 30G
-7.3
2.4 pts
1.2 reb
1.2 ast
7.5 min

JD Davison spent the vast majority of this nine-game stretch buried at the end of the rotation, struggling to find any rhythm during brief cameos. His 01/19 vs NOP appearance set a bleak tone for the winter. He missed both of his shots in four minutes, generating a dismal -11.4 impact score due to complete offensive invisibility. Even when given a longer leash on 02/07 vs OKC, his relatively high eight points in 18 minutes still resulted in a -5.4 impact score. That night, a glaring lack of playmaking dragged him down, as he managed just one assist and failed to organize the second unit. Everything finally flipped during a heavy workload on 04/12 vs MEM. He suffered through an ugly 2-for-9 shooting night, yet his relentless energy drove a massive +6.7 impact score. By ripping down 10 rebounds and distributing 7 assists in 26 minutes, Davison found a way to dictate the game's flow despite the meager scoring output.

Dorian Finney-Smith
Forward Yr 9 41G (1S)
-7.8
3.2 pts
2.5 reb
0.9 ast
16.3 min

This twelve-game stretch was a harsh, undeniable fade into irrelevance for the veteran forward. He briefly found a rhythm on 03/06 vs POR, posting a +2.2 Impact score despite scoring just five points because he crashed the glass for five rebounds and generated crucial extra possessions through gritty hustle. That spark vanished immediately on 03/08 vs SAS. Even though he chipped in eight points on highly efficient shooting, his defensive lapses and inability to secure the boards dragged his Impact down to -3.4. His minutes plummeted shortly after, and by the time he played on 03/21 vs MIA, he looked completely lost. He logged a disastrous -14.5 Impact score in just 14 minutes, offering nothing but empty cardio and blown rotations while missing both of his field goal attempts. When your primary value is being a reliable three-and-D wing, offering zero offensive punch while bleeding points on the other end guarantees a permanent spot at the end of the bench.

Jeff Green
Forward Yr 18 32G
-8.1
2.1 pts
0.8 reb
0.2 ast
5.8 min

Father Time finally caught up to Jeff Green during this brutal ten-game stretch, reducing the veteran forward to a mere offensive liability at the end of the bench. His jumper completely abandoned him. On 03/11 vs DEN, Green logged eight empty minutes and missed all three of his attempts from beyond the arc, generating a dismal -11.0 impact score. His total inability to hit perimeter shots ruined the floor spacing for the second unit, making him an active detriment whenever he checked into the game. Things hit rock bottom on 04/03 vs UTA, where another scoreless outing dragged his impact down to a staggering -16.2. Even when given an extended 24-minute run on 04/12 vs MEM, Green could not salvage his rhythm. He managed to scrape together six points and five rebounds, but his atrocious 2-for-8 shooting night yielded a terrible -12.7 impact score due to the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions.

L
vs LAL LAL
98 LAL HOU 78
LAL vs LAL
78 98
Fri, May 1
Playoffs Analysis
-20
W
@ LAL LAL
99 HOU LAL 93
LAL @ LAL
99 93
Wed, Apr 29
Playoffs Analysis
+6
W
vs LAL LAL
96 LAL HOU 115
LAL vs LAL
115 96
Sun, Apr 26
Playoffs Analysis
+19
L
vs LAL LAL
112 LAL HOU 108
LAL vs LAL
108 112
Fri, Apr 24
Playoffs Analysis
-4
L
@ LAL LAL
94 HOU LAL 101
LAL @ LAL
94 101
Tue, Apr 21
Playoffs Analysis
-7
L
@ LAL LAL
98 HOU LAL 107
LAL @ LAL
98 107
Sat, Apr 18
Playoffs Analysis
-9
W
vs MEM MEM
101 MEM HOU 132
MEM vs MEM
132 101
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
+31
L
vs MIN MIN
136 MIN HOU 132
MIN vs MIN
132 136
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
-4
W
vs PHI PHI
102 PHI HOU 113
PHI vs PHI
113 102
Thu, Apr 9
Analysis
+11
W
@ PHX PHX
119 HOU PHX 105
PHX @ PHX
119 105
Tue, Apr 7
Analysis
+14
W
@ GSW GSW
117 HOU GSW 116
GSW @ GSW
117 116
Sun, Apr 5
Analysis
+1
W
vs UTA UTA
106 UTA HOU 140
UTA vs UTA
140 106
Fri, Apr 3
Analysis
+34
W
vs MIL MIL
113 MIL HOU 119
MIL vs MIL
119 113
Wed, Apr 1
Analysis
+6
W
vs NYK NYK
94 NYK HOU 111
NYK vs NYK
111 94
Tue, Mar 31
Analysis
+17
W
@ NOP NOP
134 HOU NOP 102
NOP @ NOP
134 102
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
+32
W
@ MEM MEM
119 HOU MEM 109
MEM @ MEM
119 109
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
+10
L
@ MIN MIN
108 HOU MIN 110
MIN @ MIN
108 110
Wed, Mar 25
Analysis
-2
L
@ CHI CHI
124 HOU CHI 132
CHI @ CHI
124 132
Mon, Mar 23
Analysis
-8
W
vs MIA MIA
122 MIA HOU 123
MIA vs MIA
123 122
Sat, Mar 21
Analysis
+1
W
vs ATL ATL
95 ATL HOU 117
ATL vs ATL
117 95
Fri, Mar 20
Analysis
+22
L
vs LAL LAL
124 LAL HOU 116
LAL vs LAL
116 124
Wed, Mar 18
Analysis
-8
L
vs LAL LAL
100 LAL HOU 92
LAL vs LAL
92 100
Mon, Mar 16
Analysis
-8
W
vs NOP NOP
105 NOP HOU 107
NOP vs NOP
107 105
Fri, Mar 13
Analysis
+2
L
@ DEN DEN
93 HOU DEN 129
DEN @ DEN
93 129
Wed, Mar 11
Analysis
-36
W
vs TOR TOR
99 TOR HOU 113
TOR vs TOR
113 99
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
+14
L
@ SAS SAS
120 HOU SAS 145
SAS @ SAS
120 145
Sun, Mar 8
Analysis
-25
W
vs POR POR
99 POR HOU 106
POR vs POR
106 99
Fri, Mar 6
Analysis
+7
L
vs GSW GSW
115 GSW HOU 113
GSW vs GSW
113 115
Thu, Mar 5
Analysis
-2
W
@ WAS WAS
123 HOU WAS 118
WAS @ WAS
123 118
Mon, Mar 2
Analysis
+5
L
@ MIA MIA
105 HOU MIA 115
MIA @ MIA
105 115
Sat, Feb 28
Analysis
-10
W
@ ORL ORL
113 HOU ORL 108
ORL @ ORL
113 108
Thu, Feb 26
Analysis
+5
W
vs SAC SAC
97 SAC HOU 128
SAC vs SAC
128 97
Wed, Feb 25
Analysis
+31
W
vs UTA UTA
105 UTA HOU 125
UTA vs UTA
125 105
Mon, Feb 23
Analysis
+20
L
@ NYK NYK
106 HOU NYK 108
NYK @ NYK
106 108
Sat, Feb 21
Analysis
-2
W
@ CHA CHA
105 HOU CHA 101
CHA @ CHA
105 101
Thu, Feb 19
Analysis
+4
L
vs LAC LAC
105 LAC HOU 102
LAC vs LAC
102 105
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
-3
W
vs LAC LAC
95 LAC HOU 102
LAC vs LAC
102 95
Tue, Feb 10
Analysis
+7
W
@ OKC OKC
112 HOU OKC 106
OKC @ OKC
112 106
Sat, Feb 7
Analysis
+6
L
vs CHA CHA
109 CHA HOU 99
CHA vs CHA
99 109
Thu, Feb 5
Analysis
-10
L
vs BOS BOS
114 BOS HOU 93
BOS vs BOS
93 114
Wed, Feb 4
Analysis
-21
W
@ IND IND
118 HOU IND 114
IND @ IND
118 114
Mon, Feb 2
Analysis
+4
W
vs DAL DAL
107 DAL HOU 111
DAL vs DAL
111 107
Sat, Jan 31
Analysis
+4
W
@ ATL ATL
104 HOU ATL 86
ATL @ ATL
104 86
Thu, Jan 29
Analysis
+18
L
vs SAS SAS
111 SAS HOU 99
SAS vs SAS
99 111
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
-12
W
vs MEM MEM
99 MEM HOU 108
MEM vs MEM
108 99
Tue, Jan 27
Analysis
+9
W
@ DET DET
111 HOU DET 104
DET @ DET
111 104
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
+7
L
@ PHI PHI
122 HOU PHI 128
PHI @ PHI
122 128
Fri, Jan 23
Analysis
-6
W
vs SAS SAS
106 SAS HOU 111
SAS vs SAS
111 106
Wed, Jan 21
Analysis
+5
W
vs NOP NOP
110 NOP HOU 119
NOP vs NOP
119 110
Mon, Jan 19
Analysis
+9
W
vs MIN MIN
105 MIN HOU 110
MIN vs MIN
110 105
Sat, Jan 17
Analysis
+5
L
vs OKC OKC
111 OKC HOU 91
OKC vs OKC
91 111
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
-20
W
vs CHI CHI
113 CHI HOU 119
CHI vs CHI
119 113
Wed, Jan 14
Analysis
+6
L
@ SAC SAC
98 HOU SAC 111
SAC @ SAC
98 111
Mon, Jan 12
Analysis
-13
L
@ POR POR
105 HOU POR 111
POR @ POR
105 111
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
-6
L
@ POR POR
102 HOU POR 103
POR @ POR
102 103
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
-1
W
vs PHX PHX
97 PHX HOU 100
PHX vs PHX
100 97
Tue, Jan 6
Analysis
+3
L
@ DAL DAL
104 HOU DAL 110
DAL @ DAL
104 110
Sun, Jan 4
Analysis
-6
W
@ BKN BKN
120 HOU BKN 96
BKN @ BKN
120 96
Thu, Jan 1
Analysis
+24
W
vs IND IND
119 IND HOU 126
IND vs IND
126 119
Tue, Dec 30
Analysis
+7
W
vs CLE CLE
100 CLE HOU 117
CLE vs CLE
117 100
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
+17
W
@ LAL LAL
119 HOU LAL 96
LAL @ LAL
119 96
Fri, Dec 26
Analysis
+23
L
@ LAC LAC
108 HOU LAC 128
LAC @ LAC
108 128
Wed, Dec 24
Analysis
-20
L
@ SAC SAC
124 HOU SAC 125
SAC @ SAC
124 125
Mon, Dec 22
Analysis
-1
W
@ DEN DEN
115 HOU DEN 101
DEN @ DEN
115 101
Sat, Dec 20
Analysis
+14
L
@ NOP NOP
128 HOU NOP 133
NOP @ NOP
128 133
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
-5
L
@ DEN DEN
125 HOU DEN 128
DEN @ DEN
125 128
Tue, Dec 16
Analysis
-3
W
vs LAC LAC
113 LAC HOU 115
LAC vs LAC
115 113
Fri, Dec 12
Analysis
+2
L
@ DAL DAL
109 HOU DAL 122
DAL @ DAL
109 122
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
-13
W
vs PHX PHX
98 PHX HOU 117
PHX vs PHX
117 98
Sat, Dec 6
Analysis
+19
W
vs SAC SAC
95 SAC HOU 121
SAC vs SAC
121 95
Thu, Dec 4
Analysis
+26
L
@ UTA UTA
125 HOU UTA 133
UTA @ UTA
125 133
Tue, Dec 2
Analysis
-8
W
@ UTA UTA
129 HOU UTA 101
UTA @ UTA
129 101
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
+28
W
@ GSW GSW
104 HOU GSW 100
GSW @ GSW
104 100
Thu, Nov 27
Analysis
+4
W
@ PHX PHX
114 HOU PHX 92
PHX @ PHX
114 92
Tue, Nov 25
Analysis
+22
L
vs DEN DEN
112 DEN HOU 109
DEN vs DEN
109 112
Sat, Nov 22
Analysis
-3
W
@ CLE CLE
114 HOU CLE 104
CLE @ CLE
114 104
Thu, Nov 20
Analysis
+10
W
vs ORL ORL
113 ORL HOU 117
ORL vs ORL
117 113
Mon, Nov 17
Analysis
+4
W
vs POR POR
116 POR HOU 140
POR vs POR
140 116
Sat, Nov 15
Analysis
+24
W
vs WAS WAS
112 WAS HOU 135
WAS vs WAS
135 112
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
+23
W
@ MIL MIL
122 HOU MIL 115
MIL @ MIL
122 115
Sun, Nov 9
Analysis
+7
L
@ SAS SAS
110 HOU SAS 121
SAS @ SAS
110 121
Sat, Nov 8
Analysis
-11
W
@ MEM MEM
124 HOU MEM 109
MEM @ MEM
124 109
Thu, Nov 6
Analysis
+15
W
vs DAL DAL
102 DAL HOU 110
DAL vs DAL
110 102
Tue, Nov 4
Analysis
+8
W
@ BOS BOS
128 HOU BOS 101
BOS @ BOS
128 101
Sun, Nov 2
Analysis
+27
W
@ TOR TOR
139 HOU TOR 121
TOR @ TOR
139 121
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
+18
W
vs BKN BKN
109 BKN HOU 137
BKN vs BKN
137 109
Mon, Oct 27
Analysis
+28
L
vs DET DET
115 DET HOU 111
DET vs DET
111 115
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
-4
L
@ OKC OKC
124 HOU OKC 125
OKC @ OKC
124 125
Tue, Oct 21
Analysis
-1