GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 32.1m
28
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
+33.2

Absolute dominance as a primary initiator and highly efficient shot-maker drove a massive positive rating. He picked apart defensive coverages with pinpoint passing while bullying his way to the rim at will. Elite weak-side defensive reads and transition hustle plays further amplified his overwhelming two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +42.2
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.3
Raw total +39.6
Avg player in 32.1m -6.4
Impact +33.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rui Hachimura 30.8m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Defensive indifference and a failure to secure contested rebounds pulled his overall impact into the red. While he knocked down his perimeter looks efficiently, he gave those points right back by getting lost on back-door cuts. His inability to contain dribble penetration neutralized his solid offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +49.8
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 30.8m -9.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jake LaRavia 30.6m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Extreme offensive passivity severely capped his value, as he attempted just a single shot in over half an hour of action. This lack of aggression allowed his defender to roam freely and double-team other playmakers. Outstanding hustle metrics and elite perimeter defense kept him from being a complete liability, but the offensive void was too glaring.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.1
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 30.6m -16.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 30.1m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Strong interior defense and reliable rim protection anchored his positive influence on the game. He consistently altered shots in the paint and forced opponents into tough, contested floaters. Efficient finishing out of the pick-and-roll ensured he was a net positive despite a relatively low offensive usage rate.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 30.1m -9.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Luke Kennard 28.2m
19
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.2

Lethal floor spacing and surprisingly stout defensive rotations fueled a stellar overall performance. His constant off-ball movement warped the opposing defense, creating wide-open driving lanes for his teammates. He completely controlled his minutes by pairing efficient perimeter scoring with disruptive activity in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.6
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 28.2m -3.1
Impact +20.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless switching on the perimeter and solid positional defense kept his rating in the green. He effectively neutralized his primary matchups and disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. Efficient finishing on dump-offs around the basket perfectly complemented his defensive-minded role.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 18.7m -2.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Marcus Smart 18.1m
6
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.3

Trademark defensive intensity and physical point-of-attack pressure drove a highly effective shift. He completely blew up multiple opponent pick-and-rolls, turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities. Even with a shaky outside jumper, his playmaking and sheer hustle dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.8
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 18.1m -13.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Errant perimeter shooting and poor shot selection quickly derailed his offensive impact. He forced several contested looks early in the clock, which directly fueled opponent fast breaks. A lack of defensive resistance on the other end compounded the damage of his cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 13.2m -7.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bronny James 12.7m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

A lack of assertiveness on the offensive end limited his ability to positively impact the game. He frequently passed up open looks, which bogged down the half-court execution and led to late-clock bailouts. Active on-ball defense and decent hustle provided some silver linings during an otherwise quiet stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 12.7m -6.3
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Maxi Kleber 11.6m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Clunky offensive execution and missed spacing opportunities dragged down his brief appearance. He struggled to find a rhythm, bricking his only look from deep and failing to stretch the floor. Gritty post defense and active closeouts salvaged some value, but not enough to overcome the offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 11.6m -9.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 6.3m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A low-usage rotational stint resulted in a nearly neutral overall impact. He executed basic offensive sets and converted his one clean look inside, but failed to alter the game's momentum. Adequate positioning kept him from being a defensive liability during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +66.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 6.3m -6.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Instant offense and flawless shooting execution maximized his incredibly brief time on the court. He immediately stretched the defense by burying a spot-up three and converting a quick transition opportunity. Sharp defensive rotations ensured his explosive scoring burst translated directly to a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +64.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 4.2m -6.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

High-energy defensive pressure during garbage time generated a surprisingly strong positive rating. He locked in on his assignments and disrupted passing lanes despite the minimal run. Flawless execution of the defensive scheme defined his fleeting moments on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.8m -6.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Active hands and immediate defensive engagement allowed him to make a quick positive mark in limited action. He drew a crucial foul by aggressively attacking the paint on his only offensive touch. Stout perimeter containment ensured his brief cameo was a net positive for the closing lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 1.8m -6.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Ryan Dunn 28.7m
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

A complete lack of offensive gravity tanked his overall impact despite active off-ball engagement. His inability to convert open perimeter looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. He salvaged some value through high-energy closeouts and defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -66.2
+/- -39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 28.7m -10.2
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 21.1m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Poor shot selection and bricked perimeter attempts dragged down his overall rating. He forced too many contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock, stalling the offensive flow. A slight positive in hustle metrics couldn't overcome the damage done by his inefficient volume.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 41.3%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -3.0
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 21.1m -1.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mark Williams 20.5m
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A stark drop in usage limited his offensive influence despite converting all his attempts around the rim. His negative defensive rating indicates he struggled to anchor the paint or deter drivers effectively. The lack of rim protection ultimately pulled his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -54.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 20.5m -7.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-level hustle plays and steady defensive positioning drove a surprisingly strong positive impact. Even though his perimeter jumper wasn't falling, he generated extra possessions by diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes. His ability to manage the game without needing to score defined his stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 16.0m -8.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Grayson Allen 12.5m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Frigid outside shooting nearly erased his value, as he repeatedly missed clean catch-and-shoot opportunities. He managed to stay barely positive by locking down his perimeter assignments and fighting over screens. Excellent point-of-attack defense ultimately salvaged an otherwise forgettable offensive night.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 12.5m -3.6
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.4

Offensive futility completely cratered his overall rating, highlighted by forced drives into heavy traffic. His inability to finish at the rim or connect from deep resulted in empty possessions that fed opponent fast breaks. Minor defensive contributions were entirely overshadowed by his detrimental shot selection.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -68.2
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense -6.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 26.7m -7.9
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.6

Settling for low-percentage perimeter looks absolutely tanked his overall impact score. He repeatedly bailed out the defense by chucking contested threes instead of moving the ball. While he showed some flashes of hustle on the glass, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -8.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.0
Raw total -6.1
Avg player in 24.3m -10.5
Impact -16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
11
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite defensive versatility and timely weak-side rotations fueled a highly impactful performance. He consistently blew up opponent pick-and-rolls, directly translating into transition opportunities. Even with a streaky outside stroke, his relentless hustle plays kept the momentum firmly in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.6
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 22.1m -4.9
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 20.9m
8
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.3

Highly efficient interior finishing and excellent screen-setting anchored a strong two-way showing. He consistently carved out deep post position and punished mismatches in the paint. Active hands on defense and reliable rebounding further cemented his positive influence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 20.9m -4.9
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Amir Coffey 20.6m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A lack of off-ball movement and defensive lapses in transition dragged his overall impact into the negative. Despite converting efficiently when he actually took shots, he spent too much time floating on the perimeter without engaging the defense. His failure to close out on corner shooters during a crucial second-half stretch proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 20.6m -5.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Koby Brea 14.4m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc severely handicapped the offense during his minutes. He short-circuited multiple possessions by forcing heavily contested catch-and-shoot looks early in the clock. Solid defensive rotations prevented his rating from dropping even further, but the offensive damage was already done.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -43.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -7.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total -4.4
Avg player in 14.4m -4.6
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Quick, decisive rim-runs and efficient finishing defined his short burst of playing time. He capitalized on dump-off passes and provided a brief spark of interior scoring. A slight negative in defensive positioning kept his overall impact modest, but he maximized his limited offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -65.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 8.0m -5.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CJ Huntley 4.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Failed to make any discernible mark on the game during a brief rotational cameo. He was largely bypassed on offense and missed his lone perimeter attempt. His total lack of hustle plays or defensive disruptions resulted in a mildly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 4.2m -5.9
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0