Phoenix Suns vs Houston Rockets Match Player Stats
The phoenix suns vs houston rockets match player stats from the April 7, 2026, matchup reveal how Houston overcame an early deficit to defeat Phoenix 119-105. Devin Booker led the Suns with 31 points, while Kevin Durant scored 24 points in his return to Phoenix. The Rockets’ second-half execution, rebounding advantage, and strong fourth-quarter performance ultimately decided the game. This analysis examines the leading scorers, shooting efficiency, rebounds, assists, defensive contributions, and the key moments that explain why Houston secured the victory.
NBA.com
+1
Match at a glance
| Match detail | Result |
| Matchup | Phoenix Suns vs Houston Rockets |
| Game date | April 7, 2026 |
| Venue | Mortgage Matchup Center, Phoenix, Arizona |
| Final score | Houston Rockets 119, Phoenix Suns 105 |
| Phoenix’s leading scorer | Devin Booker, 31 points |
| Houston’s leading scorer | Kevin Durant, 24 points |
| Houston’s total rebounds | 55 |
| Phoenix’s total rebounds | 34 |
| Final-quarter score | Houston 38, Phoenix 21 |
The numbers above come from the official NBA game summary and box score.
NBA.com
+1
phoenix suns vs houston rockets match player stats: Game Overview
The final score does not tell the entire story of this contest. Phoenix began with excellent offensive rhythm, built a substantial first-quarter advantage, and appeared capable of controlling the game on its home court. Houston responded with patience, improved its execution, and gradually turned a difficult start into a convincing 14-point victory.
The Rockets won each of the final three quarters after falling behind in the opening period. Their biggest advantage came in the fourth quarter, when they outscored Phoenix 38-21. That final stretch transformed a competitive game into a clear Houston win.
The most important statistical difference was rebounding. Houston collected 55 rebounds compared with Phoenix’s 34, creating a 21-rebound advantage. That gap matters because rebounds determine who gets additional possessions, who can run in transition, and who has greater control over the pace of a game.
Phoenix also had a strong individual performance from Booker, who scored 31 points. However, one high-scoring performance was not enough to offset Houston’s collective production and physical presence.
For readers examining this matchup, three questions are especially useful:
- How did Houston recover from its slow opening quarter?
- Which individual performances had the greatest influence on the result?
- What do the shooting, rebounding, and quarter-by-quarter numbers reveal beyond the final score?
Answering these questions provides a clearer picture of the game than simply listing points scored by each player.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The scoring progression illustrates how quickly the momentum changed.
| Quarter | Houston Rockets | Phoenix Suns |
| First quarter | 21 | 37 |
| Second quarter | 33 | 20 |
| Third quarter | 27 | 27 |
| Fourth quarter | 38 | 21 |
| Final score | 119 | 105 |
Source: official NBA game summary.
NBA.com
First quarter: Phoenix establishes control
Phoenix scored 37 points in the opening quarter, while Houston managed only 21. The Suns found early scoring opportunities, moved the ball effectively, and took advantage of their initial shooting rhythm.
Houston struggled to match that pace. An early deficit of 16 points put the Rockets under pressure and required a response before Phoenix could extend its lead further.
However, a strong opening quarter does not guarantee a victory. Basketball games involve repeated changes in possession, defensive adjustments, and opportunities to exploit mismatches. Houston had enough time to address its problems.
Second quarter: Houston changes the direction
The Rockets responded by scoring 33 points in the second quarter and holding Phoenix to 20. That 13-point quarter advantage erased most of the damage from the opening period.
This was an important stage of the game because Houston did not need to win every possession. It needed to make the Suns work harder for their points, generate more effective offensive possessions, and prevent Phoenix from continuing its initial scoring run.
By halftime, the game had become much more competitive. Houston’s response also showed that the first-quarter deficit was not necessarily a sign of how the rest of the contest would unfold.
Third quarter: Both teams remain competitive
Each team scored 27 points in the third quarter. Neither side created a scoring advantage during that period, and Phoenix remained within reach.
The tied quarter suggests that the contest was still open heading into the final 12 minutes. Houston had made up ground, but the result had not yet been settled.
At this stage, rebounds, defensive communication, shot selection, and execution in late-clock situations became increasingly important.
Fourth quarter: Houston delivers the decisive run
Houston scored 38 points in the final quarter, compared with Phoenix’s 21. The 17-point difference in the period was the decisive factor in the final result.
The Rockets converted their improved second-half play into a strong finish. Phoenix could not maintain enough offensive production to match Houston’s scoring, and the visitors pulled away.
The lesson from the quarter-by-quarter breakdown is straightforward: Phoenix’s early scoring advantage was significant, but Houston’s ability to sustain its performance across the rest of the game proved more valuable.
Phoenix Suns Player Stats and Individual Performances
Phoenix had several players contribute offensively, but Booker’s scoring stood out. The Suns also received an efficient performance from center Mark Williams and useful contributions from Jordan Goodwin and Jalen Green.
The following statistics are from the April 7 game box score.
NBA.com
+1
| Phoenix player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field goals |
| Devin Booker | 31 | 4 | 8 | 7/16 |
| Mark Williams | 19 | 8 | 0 | 7/9 |
| Jalen Green | 15 | 3 | 1 | 5/14 |
| Jordan Goodwin | 11 | 4 | 2 | 4/7 |
| Dillon Brooks | 10 | 3 | 1 | 3/12 |
The table highlights five key Phoenix performers. It is not a complete roster box score.
Devin Booker: 31 points and eight assists
Booker was Phoenix’s leading scorer, finishing with 31 points, four rebounds, and eight assists. He made seven of 16 field-goal attempts and converted 15 of 16 free throws.
His free-throw performance was especially important. Booker scored efficiently at the line, converting 93.8% of his attempts. His ability to draw fouls helped Phoenix maintain its scoring output even when field-goal opportunities became more difficult.
Booker’s eight assists also demonstrate that his contribution extended beyond individual scoring. He created opportunities for teammates while remaining the primary offensive option.
However, his performance reveals an important distinction between individual success and team success. A player can score more than 30 points and distribute the ball effectively without his team winning. Basketball outcomes depend on how those contributions combine with rebounding, defensive stops, turnovers, and the production of other players.
Booker’s 31 points were an excellent individual result, but Houston’s fourth-quarter advantage and superior rebounding prevented Phoenix from turning that performance into a victory.
Mark Williams: Efficient finishing near the basket
Williams scored 19 points, collected eight rebounds, and made seven of nine field-goal attempts. His field-goal percentage was an impressive 77.8%.
This was one of Phoenix’s most efficient scoring performances. Williams converted opportunities at a much higher rate than several of the team’s perimeter players.
His contribution was particularly valuable because efficient interior scoring can reduce the pressure on perimeter shooters. When a center finishes near the basket, defenders must account for that threat, potentially opening driving lanes and outside shots for teammates.
Williams also provided three steals, according to the official box score. That defensive contribution added value beyond his scoring and rebounding.
Nevertheless, eight rebounds from one center could not overcome Houston’s overall 55-34 advantage on the glass. Williams was productive individually, but the team’s collective rebounding effort remained insufficient.
Jalen Green: A difficult perimeter shooting night
Green finished with 15 points, three rebounds, and one assist. He made five of 14 field-goal attempts and did not convert any of his four three-point attempts.
His 35.7% field-goal percentage indicates that he struggled to find consistent shooting rhythm. Green still reached 15 points, partly because he made five of seven free throws.
The distinction between total points and shooting efficiency is important here. Fifteen points may appear useful in isolation, but the number of attempts and the types of shots taken help explain how efficiently a player generated those points.
Green also recorded four blocks, an unusual defensive contribution for a perimeter player. Those blocks should not be overlooked simply because his outside shooting was unsuccessful.
For a complete assessment, his offensive performance must be considered alongside his defensive activity. His shooting was below the level Phoenix needed, but his overall box-score contribution was not limited to scoring.
Jordan Goodwin: Productive scoring in limited opportunities
Goodwin scored 11 points on four-of-seven shooting, including three successful three-pointers on six attempts. He also recorded four rebounds, two assists, and two steals.
His 50% three-point shooting was a useful source of perimeter production for Phoenix. Unlike a player who needs a high number of attempts to accumulate points, Goodwin generated his scoring on a relatively modest number of shots.
His two steals also indicate defensive activity that helped Phoenix compete in individual possessions.
Goodwin’s performance illustrates why supporting players can have a meaningful influence on a game. A reserve or secondary scorer does not need to lead the team in points to contribute value. Efficient shooting, defensive plays, and sound decisions can improve a team’s performance even when its primary scorer carries the largest offensive load.
Dillon Brooks: Scoring volume without consistent accuracy
Brooks finished with 10 points, three rebounds, and one assist. He made three of 12 field-goal attempts and one of seven three-point attempts.
His field-goal percentage was 25%, while his three-point percentage was approximately 14.3%. Those numbers indicate that he struggled to convert his shooting opportunities.
Brooks’ role involves more than scoring, but the shooting figures matter because missed shots can reduce offensive efficiency, especially when the opposing team is strong on the boards.
When evaluating this performance, it is useful to separate shot volume from shot quality. Twelve field-goal attempts gave Brooks opportunities to contribute, but converting only three made it difficult for Phoenix to obtain consistent scoring value from those possessions.
The Suns needed a stronger combination of perimeter accuracy and defensive rebounding to offset Houston’s overall physical advantage.
Houston Rockets Player Stats and Standout Performances
Houston’s victory was built on contributions from multiple players rather than one isolated scoring performance. Durant led the team with 24 points, while Jabari Smith Jr. scored 20. Amen Thompson’s athleticism, Alperen Sengun’s interior playmaking, and the team’s rebounding also helped Houston recover from its slow start.
| Houston player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field goals |
| Kevin Durant | 24 | 4 | 3 | 8/20 |
| Jabari Smith Jr. | 20 | 6 | 1 | 6/18 |
| Amen Thompson | 20 | 9 | 6 | 9/13 |
| Alperen Sengun | 10 | 14 | 6 | 5/15 |
| Reed Sheppard | 8 | 5 | 1 | 5/9 |
These are key Houston performers, not a complete team box score. Individual figures are based on the official game record and published box-score data.
NBA.com
+1
Kevin Durant: 24 points in his return to Phoenix
Durant led Houston with 24 points, adding four rebounds and three assists. He made eight of 20 field-goal attempts, including five of nine from three-point range.
His three-point accuracy was particularly notable. Durant converted 55.6% of his attempts from beyond the arc, providing Houston with valuable scoring even though his overall field-goal percentage was 40%.
The performance also carried a personal storyline. Durant returned to Phoenix after spending two and a half seasons with the Suns before joining Houston. The game therefore attracted attention beyond its playoff implications and statistical outcome.
NBA.com
From a tactical perspective, Durant’s perimeter shooting helped stretch Phoenix’s defense. A player capable of converting five three-pointers forces defenders to respect the outside shot, making it harder to concentrate entirely on protecting the basket.
His performance was not flawless. Twenty attempts to score 24 points is different from producing the same total on fewer shots. Still, the five made three-pointers and his role in Houston’s late scoring surge made him a central figure in the win.
Jabari Smith Jr.: Twenty points and five three-pointers
Smith scored 20 points, collected six rebounds, and made six of 18 field-goal attempts. Five of his made shots came from three-point range.
He converted five of 13 attempts from beyond the arc, producing a three-point percentage of 38.5%.
Smith’s perimeter production was important because Houston needed scoring from multiple positions. When a team has more than one credible outside threat, the opposing defense cannot devote all its attention to a single player.
His overall field-goal percentage was 33.3%, so the full shooting line shows a mixed performance. However, his outside shooting helped Houston maintain offensive spacing and added another source of scoring during its comeback.
This is an important example of why field-goal percentage should not be interpreted without considering shot type. A player who attempts many three-pointers can have a lower overall field-goal percentage while still providing useful floor spacing and meaningful perimeter production.
Amen Thompson: Athleticism, finishing, and playmaking
Thompson contributed 20 points, nine rebounds, and six assists. He made nine of 13 field-goal attempts, giving him a field-goal percentage of approximately 69.2%.
That efficiency made his performance one of Houston’s most productive individual contributions.
Thompson’s combination of scoring, rebounding, and passing is particularly valuable because it allows a player to influence several aspects of the game. He does not need to score on every possession to help the Rockets create an advantage.
His rebounding also supported Houston’s overall control of the glass. At 6-foot-7, Thompson’s athleticism can help him compete for rebounds, attack open driving lanes, and finish around the rim.
His six assists show that he also helped teammates score. When a player can threaten the basket while distributing the ball, the defense must account for both possibilities.
Thompson’s performance was therefore about more than his point total. Efficient finishing and contributions across several statistical categories helped Houston sustain its attack.
Alperen Sengun: Rebounding and interior presence
Sengun recorded 10 points, 14 rebounds, and six assists. He made five of 15 field-goal attempts, giving him a field-goal percentage of 33.3%.
His scoring efficiency was limited, but his rebounding total was important. Fourteen rebounds from one player can help a team secure defensive possessions and create additional opportunities through offensive rebounds.
Sengun’s six assists also show that his role was not confined to scoring near the basket. His passing can help Houston move the ball through the interior and create opportunities for perimeter teammates.
This combination of rebounding and playmaking helps explain why a player’s value cannot always be judged by field-goal percentage alone. Sengun had a difficult shooting night, yet he still contributed in two areas that supported Houston’s overall game plan.
Reed Sheppard: Efficient contribution from the supporting cast
Sheppard scored eight points and made five of nine field-goal attempts, including three-pointers as part of his shooting contribution.
His production helped Houston obtain scoring from beyond its main offensive options. Supporting players who convert their opportunities can make it harder for the opposing defense to focus on the primary scorers.
While his point total was lower than Durant’s or Smith’s, Sheppard’s efficiency provided useful depth. In a game decided by a strong second half, those additional contributions can help maintain offensive flow when starters rest or defensive matchups change.
The broader takeaway is that Houston did not rely solely on its leading scorer. Several players contributed enough to keep the offense balanced and prevent Phoenix from concentrating its defensive resources on one threat.
Team Statistics Comparison: What Decided the Game?
Individual performances explain who scored, but team statistics reveal why Houston won. The most important categories in this matchup were rebounding, points in the paint, turnovers, and the distribution of scoring across the four quarters.
| Team statistic | Houston Rockets | Phoenix Suns |
| Final points | 119 | 105 |
| Total rebounds | 55 | 34 |
| Points in the paint | 56 | 44 |
| Fast-break points | 11 | 14 |
| Biggest lead | 15 | 21 |
| Bench points | 29 | 19 |
| Turnovers | 17 | 18 |
| Points off turnovers | 9 | 7 |
| Second-chance points | 25 | 24 |
Source: official NBA game summary and game statistics.
NBA.com
Rebounding: Houston’s clearest advantage
Houston finished with 55 rebounds, compared with Phoenix’s 34. The 21-rebound difference was the most striking statistical gap in the game.
Rebounding influences both ends of the court.
- Defensive rebounds end the opponent’s possession and allow a team to move into its offense.
- Offensive rebounds create another chance to score after a missed shot.
- Team rebounding helps prevent opponents from generating extra possessions and second-chance opportunities.
Houston’s advantage was especially important because the Rockets did not shoot particularly well across every category. Their collective ability to secure rebounds helped compensate for less efficient shooting from some players.
Phoenix, meanwhile, needed to do more than score well in isolated stretches. It also needed to finish defensive possessions by collecting missed shots.
The figures do not mean that every extra rebound directly produced points. Some rebounds lead to immediate transition opportunities, while others simply prevent an opponent from getting another attempt. Nevertheless, a 21-rebound margin is substantial enough to identify as a major factor in the result.
Points in the paint: Houston controls the interior
The Rockets scored 56 points in the paint, while the Suns recorded 44. Houston therefore held a 12-point advantage in this category.
Interior scoring often reflects several connected strengths: attacking the basket, finishing through contact, cutting without the ball, and exploiting defensive mismatches.
Houston’s paint production also complemented its perimeter shooting. Durant and Smith provided outside scoring, while Thompson and Sengun contributed through drives, cuts, and interior activity.
Phoenix was not completely ineffective near the basket. Williams scored 19 points on seven-of-nine shooting, showing that the Suns could generate efficient interior opportunities.
The difference was the team’s overall output. Williams had a productive night, but Houston generated more points from the paint collectively.
This distinction matters when reviewing individual statistics. A strong center performance does not automatically indicate that a team won the interior battle. The entire team’s scoring and rebounding must be considered.
Turnovers: A relatively small difference
Houston committed 17 turnovers, while Phoenix committed 18. The Rockets had one fewer turnover.
This is not a large enough difference to explain the entire result. Both teams lost possession of the ball frequently, and Houston’s victory depended more heavily on its rebounding advantage and stronger finish.
The turnover figures also demonstrate why a single statistic rarely explains a basketball game. Phoenix had fewer turnovers in the sense that the difference was only one, but the Suns still lost by 14 points.
A useful analysis therefore considers how multiple factors work together. Houston rebounded better, scored more in the paint, and dominated the fourth quarter. Those advantages outweighed the relatively small turnover difference.
Bench production: Houston gets more from its reserves
Houston recorded 29 bench points, compared with Phoenix’s 19.
A 10-point bench advantage can be important in a game where the starters carry heavy workloads. Reserve players need to maintain the team’s performance while key scorers rest, and their contributions can influence the rhythm of a contest.
Bench scoring alone does not measure the complete value of a reserve player. Defense, rebounding, ball movement, and avoiding turnovers also matter.
However, Houston’s higher bench total indicates that its scoring was not restricted to the starting lineup. That depth helped support the comeback and the team’s strong final quarter.
Second-chance scoring: A useful distinction
Houston scored 25 second-chance points, while Phoenix recorded 24.
Although Houston had a large overall rebounding advantage, the second-chance scoring difference was only one point. This is a useful reminder that rebounds and points generated from rebounds are not interchangeable statistics.
A team can collect many rebounds without converting every additional possession into points. Some rebounds end in a reset, a pass back outside, or another missed shot.
In this game, Houston’s rebounding advantage was still significant, but the second-chance scoring figures suggest that the difference came from a broader combination of possession control and offensive execution rather than a huge gap in second-chance points alone.
Shooting Efficiency and Three-Point Performance
Shooting statistics are essential for understanding why a player scored a particular number of points. Two players can both score 20 points while using very different numbers of attempts.
A player who makes a high percentage of shots may create more value from each possession. However, shot selection, free throws, passing, and defensive contributions must also be considered.
Comparing the leading scorers
| Player | Points | Field goals | Three-pointers | Free throws |
| Devin Booker | 31 | 7/16 | 2/6 | 15/16 |
| Kevin Durant | 24 | 8/20 | 5/9 | 3/3 |
| Mark Williams | 19 | 7/9 | 0/0 | 5/6 |
| Jabari Smith Jr. | 20 | 6/18 | 5/13 | 3/3 |
| Amen Thompson | 20 | 9/13 | 0/0 | 2/2 |
The statistics illustrate how different offensive styles can produce similar scoring totals.
NBA.com
+1
Booker’s free throws versus Durant’s three-pointers
Booker and Durant reached their point totals through different scoring methods.
Booker scored 15 points at the free-throw line. Durant, meanwhile, made five three-pointers, which accounted for 15 of his 24 points.
The comparison is revealing because both players generated substantial scoring value in different ways. Booker repeatedly reached the line, while Durant converted long-range shots at a high rate.
These methods create different defensive challenges. A player who draws fouls can put opponents into foul trouble and generate points when the defense is not giving up a field goal. A player who makes three-pointers forces defenders to cover more space and can create openings for teammates.
Neither method is automatically superior in every game. The value depends on the number of opportunities, the efficiency of conversion, and how the rest of the offense responds.
Why field-goal percentage needs context
Field-goal percentage measures the number of successful two-point and three-point shots relative to attempts. It does not include free throws.
This means it can sometimes give an incomplete picture of offensive efficiency.
Booker’s 7-of-16 shooting produced a 43.8% field-goal percentage, but his free throws significantly increased his total points. Durant’s 8-of-20 shooting produced a 40% field-goal percentage, yet his five made three-pointers provided substantial scoring value.
A more complete review considers:
- Field-goal percentage.
- Three-point percentage.
- Free-throw percentage.
- Turnovers and missed possessions.
- Assists and opportunities created for teammates.
- The quality and difficulty of shots.
For readers comparing players across multiple games, it is also useful to examine true shooting percentage, which incorporates two-point shots, three-pointers, and free throws into one efficiency measure.
Head-to-Head Context: The 2025-26 Season
The April 7 game was not an isolated result. Houston also won the other three regular-season meetings between the teams during the 2025-26 season.
| Game date | Winner | Final score |
| November 24, 2025 | Houston Rockets | Houston 114, Phoenix 92 |
| December 5, 2025 | Houston Rockets | Houston 117, Phoenix 98 |
| January 5, 2026 | Houston Rockets | Houston 100, Phoenix 97 |
| April 7, 2026 | Houston Rockets | Houston 119, Phoenix 105 |
The season series finished 4-0 in Houston’s favor.
StatMuse
+1
November 24: Houston wins by 22 points
Houston won the first meeting 114-92. Amen Thompson scored 28 points, eight assists, and seven rebounds, while Jabari Smith Jr. added 17 points.
Phoenix received 29 points from Dillon Brooks, but its individual scoring was not enough to keep pace with Houston.
The result established an early pattern: Houston could generate balanced offense and use its athleticism to pressure Phoenix on both ends of the court.
December 5: Another convincing Rockets victory
Houston won the second meeting 117-98. Amen Thompson scored 31 points, and Durant recorded 28 points in the game.
The Rockets’ shooting was particularly strong, including 45 made field goals from 76 attempts. That represented a field-goal percentage of approximately 59.2%.
Phoenix scored 98 points but could not match Houston’s offensive efficiency. The 19-point margin reflected the difference between producing a reasonable total and converting possessions at an exceptional rate.
January 5: A closer contest
The January meeting finished 100-97 in Houston’s favor.
Unlike the other games in the series, this was decided by only three points. The narrow margin shows that Phoenix could compete with Houston in a much tighter contest, even though it ultimately fell short.
Close games often depend on execution in the final possessions, defensive stops, and the ability to create a good shot under pressure. The final score alone does not identify every turning point, but it shows that the matchup was more competitive on this occasion.
April 7: Houston completes the season sweep
The final regular-season meeting ended with a 119-105 Houston victory.
Phoenix led by as many as 21 points, yet Houston recovered and finished the game strongly. The Rockets’ 55 rebounds, 56 points in the paint, and 38-point fourth quarter helped them turn the contest around.
Across the four games, Houston demonstrated different ways to win. The Rockets produced a dominant margin in November, shot exceptionally well in December, survived a close finish in January, and completed a comeback in April.
That range of results is more informative than treating one game as the sole measure of the matchup.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Houston and Phoenix
The box score offers several broader lessons about how these teams performed against one another.
1. Balanced production can overcome a single dominant scorer
Booker scored 31 points, but Houston’s scoring came from several important contributors. Durant and Thompson scored 20 or more points, Smith added 20, and Sengun contributed 10 points alongside 14 rebounds and six assists.
This balance makes an offense harder to defend. If one player has a difficult shooting stretch, teammates can continue producing points. Phoenix received useful contributions from Williams and Goodwin, but the Rockets’ overall scoring distribution helped them maintain pressure throughout the second half.
2. Rebounding can matter as much as shooting
Houston’s 21-rebound advantage stands out because it provided the foundation for possession control. Teams that consistently secure rebounds can prevent opponents from extending possessions and can create opportunities to attack before the defense is organized.
For Phoenix, improving defensive rebounding would have been an important adjustment. The Suns needed to end more Houston possessions on the first attempt and reduce the opportunities available to the Rockets’ frontcourt players.
3. The fourth quarter can expose problems hidden by the first
Phoenix scored 37 points in the first quarter, but its offense slowed considerably in the fourth. Houston’s final-quarter scoring advantage was 17 points.
A strong opening can create confidence, but maintaining a lead requires more than early shooting success. Teams must adjust when opponents change defensive coverages, attack mismatches, or increase their physical intensity.
The fourth-quarter numbers suggest that Houston executed more effectively when the game was on the line.
4. Individual efficiency must be evaluated alongside team results
Williams shot 77.8% from the field, while Booker reached 31 points and eight assists. Both had productive offensive performances.
However, basketball is a team sport. Strong individual statistics do not guarantee victory when the opposing team controls rebounds, receives more balanced contributions, and finishes possessions more effectively.
The best analysis therefore considers both individual performance and the collective result.
How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
For anyone researching NBA box scores, understanding the main statistical categories makes game analysis more useful.
| Statistic | Meaning | Why it matters |
| PTS | Points | Measures direct scoring production |
| REB | Rebounds | Shows possession recovery |
| AST | Assists | Tracks passes credited for made baskets |
| FG% | Field-goal percentage | Measures accuracy on field-goal attempts |
| 3P% | Three-point percentage | Measures accuracy from beyond the arc |
| FT% | Free-throw percentage | Measures success at the free-throw line |
| STL | Steals | Records defensive plays that take possession away |
| BLK | Blocks | Measures shots blocked by a defender |
| TO | Turnovers | Records lost possessions |
| +/- | Plus-minus | Shows the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court |
These statistics are most useful when considered together rather than in isolation.
For example, a player with 12 points and 10 assists may have influenced the offense more broadly than a player with 18 points and no assists. That does not automatically make the first player better, because efficiency, defense, and turnovers also matter. It simply shows why scoring totals are not a complete measure of performance.
Similarly, a center with 14 rebounds may have helped the team control possessions even if the player struggled to score efficiently.
For reliable game analysis, the official NBA box score is the best starting point for verifying player totals, minutes, shooting figures, and team statistics.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the latest Phoenix Suns vs Houston Rockets game?
The Houston Rockets defeated the Phoenix Suns 119-105 on April 7, 2026, at Mortgage Matchup Center in Phoenix.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Devin Booker led Phoenix with 31 points. Kevin Durant led Houston with 24 points in his return to Phoenix.
3. Which team had more rebounds?
Houston recorded 55 rebounds, while Phoenix collected 34. The Rockets finished with a 21-rebound advantage.
4. How many assists did Devin Booker record?
Booker recorded eight assists, along with 31 points and four rebounds.
5. What was the biggest difference between the two teams?
Rebounding was the clearest statistical difference. Houston also outscored Phoenix in the paint and won the fourth quarter 38-21, helping turn an early deficit into a 14-point victory.
6. What was the Rockets’ record against the Suns in the 2025-26 regular season?
Houston won all four regular-season meetings, finishing the season series with a 4-0 record against Phoenix.
Conclusion
The phoenix suns vs houston rockets match player stats show how Houston combined balanced scoring, superior rebounding, and strong second-half execution to secure a 119-105 victory on April 7, 2026.
Devin Booker’s 31 points and eight assists led Phoenix, while Mark Williams added an efficient 19-point performance. For Houston, Kevin Durant scored 24 points, Jabari Smith Jr. contributed 20, and Amen Thompson added 20 points with nine rebounds and six assists.
The defining difference was Houston’s 55-34 rebounding advantage, supported by a 56-44 edge in points in the paint and a decisive 38-21 fourth quarter. Those numbers explain why Phoenix’s strong opening was not enough to preserve its lead.
The broader head-to-head record adds further context. Houston won all four regular-season meetings in 2025-26, demonstrating its ability to succeed in both close contests and more decisive victories. Taken together, the individual performances and team statistics provide a more complete understanding of the matchup than the final score alone.
