GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Drew Timme 26.5m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive anchoring issues and slow closeouts allowed opponents to feast on the perimeter, tanking his overall impact. He fought hard on the interior, generating extra possessions through sheer physicality and hustle. However, his heavy-footed pick-and-roll coverage continuously compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -53.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 26.5m -13.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 25.6m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A steady diet of mid-range isolation buckets kept the offense afloat, yet his overall impact slipped negative due to off-ball lapses. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy momentum-shifting layups. The strong individual shot-making simply couldn't compensate for the structural defensive breakdowns he was involved in.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 25.6m -12.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Luke Kennard 23.2m
10
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.3

Operating as a secondary playmaker, his elite court vision tore apart the opponent's zone coverage. He consistently punished over-rotations by delivering pinpoint kick-out passes to open shooters. This playmaking masterclass, paired with surprisingly stout positional defense, drove a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -50.6
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 23.2m -11.3
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 22.8m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.2

A shocking lack of offensive assertiveness broke a dominant streak of interior efficiency, completely stalling the half-court attack. He settled for contested fadeaways rather than establishing deep post position against smaller defenders. This passive approach, combined with lethargic rim protection, resulted in a catastrophic net negative performance.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -59.1
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense -6.8
Raw total -6.9
Avg player in 22.8m -11.3
Impact -18.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 19.9m
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

Brick after brick from the perimeter destroyed offensive spacing and allowed the defense to pack the paint. He tried to salvage his night with aggressive closeouts and excellent weak-side help rotations, grading out beautifully on defense. Still, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -52.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -8.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 19.9m -9.8
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Bronny James 22.7m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Forcing heavily contested perimeter shots completely derailed the offensive rhythm during his minutes. He did manage to stay attached to his man defensively, navigating screens well enough to post a positive defensive grade. However, the inability to punish drop coverage with a reliable jumper allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -61.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 22.7m -11.1
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adou Thiero 20.6m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

A surprising scoring surge provided a temporary spark, but poor transition spacing negated much of that value. He graded out well defensively by blowing up several dribble hand-offs at the point of attack. Unfortunately, his tendency to clog driving lanes on offense ultimately bogged down the unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 20.6m -10.2
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

A complete inability to stay in front of straight-line drives turned his minutes into a layup line for the opposition. He compounded those defensive woes by rushing his offensive sets and firing off-balance jumpers early in the shot clock. This disastrous combination of poor shot selection and porous perimeter defense resulted in a massive negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total -4.1
Avg player in 18.5m -9.2
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Kobe Bufkin 18.3m
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.4

Flashes of aggressive downhill driving were undermined by erratic decision-making in traffic. While he found teammates for a few timely looks, his struggles to finish through contact led to empty possessions. The defensive intensity was adequate, but the offensive inconsistency ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -5.9
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 18.3m -9.0
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Maxi Kleber 13.2m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Hesitancy to let it fly from deep allowed his defender to roam and double-team the primary ball handlers. He provided reliable rim deterrence and secured his defensive rebounding assignments to limit second-chance opportunities. Ultimately, his offensive passivity cramped the floor too much to sustain positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 13.2m -6.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Instant offense off the bench completely changed the complexion of the game during his short stint. He aggressively attacked tilted defenses, converting high-degree-of-difficulty floaters to punish late rotations. This microwave scoring burst easily outweighed his occasional lapses in weak-side defensive awareness.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 12.0m -5.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Chris Mañon 12.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

High-energy closeouts and active hands in the passing lanes defined a gritty, defense-first performance. He embraced the dirty work, fighting through screens and diving for loose balls to secure extra possessions. This relentless motor ensured his brief stint remained a net positive despite minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

A fleeting appearance barely left a dent in the game's overarching metrics. He executed his defensive assignments perfectly and knocked down his only perimeter look when left unattended. The sample size was simply too small to generate anything beyond a baseline neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -65.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 4.7m -2.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
25
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.5

Surgical precision in isolation sets tore the defensive game plan apart, yielding an astronomical box impact. He consistently manipulated drop coverage to create high-value looks for both himself and his teammates. Even with average hustle metrics, his flawless offensive execution and disruptive passing lane instincts dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +63.3
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 28.0m -13.8
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luguentz Dort 22.6m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

Relentless point-of-attack pressure completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, driving a massive defensive rating. His willingness to dive for loose balls and fight through screens generated extra possessions that metrics often miss. The overall positive impact was cemented by timely perimeter shot-making when the defense collapsed.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +66.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.2
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 22.6m -11.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Chet Holmgren 22.0m
15
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.0

Elite rim deterrence anchored the interior defense, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters and kick-outs. Offensively, his highly efficient shot selection as a roll man maximized his touches without forcing action. This two-way paint dominance easily outweighed a relatively quiet night in the hustle categories.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +71.2
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +11.0
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 22.0m -10.9
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ajay Mitchell 21.4m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Forced attempts in traffic dragged down his overall efficiency despite a solid foundation of offensive creation. He managed to keep his head above water by executing crisp entry passes and maintaining disciplined defensive rotations. However, settling for contested mid-range pull-ups prevented this from being a truly breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.4
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 21.4m -10.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A complete lack of offensive involvement tanked his usual value, breaking a recent streak of highly efficient finishing. While he still provided solid positional defense and rebounding positioning, the inability to punish switches left the offense playing four-on-five. His minimal court time ultimately capped both his positive defensive contributions and his offensive detriment.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 10.3m -5.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

Impact soared off the charts thanks to elite screen navigation and suffocating perimeter containment. Even with his scoring volume dropping sharply from recent outings, his relentless motor on 50/50 balls generated crucial momentum swings. He proved that high-level defensive activity and connective passing can dominate a game without requiring high shot volume.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +71.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +9.8
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 22.7m -11.3
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Despite finding an offensive rhythm and finishing efficiently at the rim, his overall impact slipped into the red due to costly transition breakdowns. He struggled to contain his primary assignment during fast breaks, giving back the value he created on offense. A few poorly timed defensive gambles ultimately outweighed his scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense -4.1
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 19.9m -9.8
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 18.2m
18
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.7

Lethal spot-up gravity completely warped the opponent's defensive shell, opening up driving lanes for the primary creators. His scorching perimeter efficiency drove a massive offensive rating, punishing every late closeout. The sheer volume of high-value spacing easily masked a rather pedestrian night on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +94.8
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 18.2m -9.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 15.8m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Catching fire from the perimeter fueled a massive offensive surge that shattered his recent scoring slump. He aggressively hunted his shot in transition, capitalizing on scrambling defenses to generate high-value looks. That offensive explosion was necessary to offset his struggles navigating off-ball screens defensively.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -3.4
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 15.8m -7.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.4

Operating strictly as a defensive anchor and connective hub, he completely vanished as a scoring threat. His sturdy post defense and timely weak-side rotations kept his overall impact near neutral. Ultimately, passing up open looks stunted the offensive flow enough to erase his positive contributions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 14.0m -6.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Errant shot selection and forced attempts at the rim severely handicapped the second-unit offense. He failed to generate any meaningful separation against isolation defenders, leading to empty possessions. While his positional defense remained steady, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips cratered his net value.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 10.2m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

A brief stint limited his ability to leave a significant footprint on the game's outcome. He provided his trademark rotational discipline and capitalized on a few opportunistic spot-up looks. However, the lack of sustained run kept his overall two-way impact hovering right around baseline.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 10.2m -4.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

An inability to finish through contact completely neutralized his offensive utility during his short stint. He did flash solid anticipation in passing lanes to generate a positive defensive grade. Unfortunately, his struggles to convert in the paint allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.5
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 9.5m -4.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.3

Opportunistic cuts and soft touch around the basket provided a sudden, unexpected jolt to the bench scoring. He exploited mismatches in the dunker spot perfectly, converting high-percentage looks with ease. This hyper-efficient offensive burst easily papered over his lack of rim protection on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 7.5m -3.7
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Making the most of garbage-time minutes, he capitalized on broken plays to secure a positive rating. He stayed within his role, making the extra pass and securing defensive boards to close out possessions. It was a brief but fundamentally sound stretch of basketball that avoided any costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 5.8m -2.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0