GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Deandre Ayton 36.3m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Soft pick-and-roll coverages and an inability to secure contested defensive rebounds dragged down his overall effectiveness. While he finished efficiently on spoon-fed looks around the basket, his lack of physical deterrence in the paint proved costly.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 36.3m -20.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 69.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 33.9m
25
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.2

Heavy isolation usage yielded mixed results, as brilliant shot-making was frequently offset by sluggish transition defense. He commanded immense defensive attention, but a tendency to hold the ball late in the clock flattened the team's overall offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 33.9m -18.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 6
S LeBron James 32.4m
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

Costly live-ball turnovers and transition defensive lapses during a crucial second-half stretch negated his otherwise robust statistical output. Despite generating quality looks and flashing solid weak-side anticipation, those momentum-killing mistakes dragged his footprint into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -53.2
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 32.4m -17.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 27.7m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.7

An absolute black hole on offense, bricking wide-open catch-and-shoot looks and stalling the half-court engine. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which completely destroyed the team's spacing and fueled a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 27.7m -15.2
Impact -18.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Austin Reaves 14.8m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Crafty foul-drawing and decisive secondary playmaking kept the offense humming during his minutes. He navigated screens well on the defensive end, providing a stable two-way presence that stabilized the backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 14.8m -8.2
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Marcus Smart 29.4m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc consistently bailed out the opposing defense and sparked opponent fast breaks. His trademark point-of-attack aggression was present, but it wasn't enough to compensate for the empty offensive possessions he generated.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 29.4m -16.3
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Game-wrecking energy on the offensive glass and in passing lanes fueled a massive positive swing. He surprisingly punished sagging defenders with a hot perimeter stroke, morphing from a defensive specialist into a two-way catalyst.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +9.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 26.4m -14.6
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 23.4m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game, often arriving a half-step late on defensive rotations. Despite connecting on a timely perimeter look, his overall inability to contain dribble penetration leaked points and hurt the unit's defensive cohesion.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 23.4m -12.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Bricked pick-and-pop opportunities neutralized his primary offensive utility and allowed the defense to pack the paint. He offered mild resistance as a help defender, but the failure to punish drop coverages made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 6.3m -3.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Found a soft spot in the defense for a quick conversion during his limited action. Offered no secondary stats, but his clean offensive execution kept his brief shift in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalized on a brief garbage-time stint by aggressively attacking the offensive glass. His willingness to play through contact in the paint provided a quick burst of positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Maximized a short run by decisively stepping into a spot-up perimeter look. He stayed within the flow of the offense and maintained solid positional discipline on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
16
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.9

High-leverage shot-making from the perimeter fueled a highly efficient outing that forced the defense to stretch thin. He paired that offensive economy with disciplined weak-side rim protection, consistently altering shots to anchor a stout defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 35.7m -19.6
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 33.5m
25
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.6

Elite perimeter efficiency anchored his massive positive impact, punishing late closeouts from the mid-range and beyond the arc. His defensive rotations (+6.6) stifled secondary actions, ensuring his offensive production translated directly to a dominant net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.6
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 33.5m -18.5
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Amen Thompson 31.9m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.6

Downhill aggression defined this performance, as he consistently collapsed the paint and finished through contact. The sheer volume of high-percentage rim attempts drove a massive box score impact, compensating for a relatively quiet night in the hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 31.9m -17.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 31.2m
14
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Despite converting efficiently around the basket, his overall influence was muted by offensive stagnation during his post-up possessions. His stout interior positioning kept the baseline afloat, but a lack of tempo and secondary creation prevented a larger net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 31.2m -17.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Tari Eason 26.1m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Relentless energy on the glass and in passing lanes completely overshadowed a clunky shooting night. He wrecked the opponent's offensive flow with physical point-of-attack defense (+9.5), generating extra possessions that masked his perimeter misfires.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +6.2
Defense +9.5
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 26.1m -14.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 1
Steven Adams 25.6m
4
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Bruising screen-setting and positional rebounding provided a steady, if unspectacular, baseline. He neutralized the opposing frontcourt's physicality, though his lack of offensive usage capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 25.6m -14.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Methodical pick-and-roll navigation allowed him to find clean looks and keep the offense in rhythm. While his perimeter stroke was slightly off, timely defensive rotations and smart closeouts kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 19.3m -10.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his value during a brief rotation stint. Without any gravity to stretch the floor or disruptive defensive events to compensate, his minutes were a net drain on the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.2%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 13.2m -7.3
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Forced attempts in traffic and broken offensive sequences plummeted his net rating. The inability to convert on spot-up opportunities allowed defenders to sag off, severely clogging the team's half-court spacing and stalling momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.4
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

A brief, erratic stint was defined by rushed perimeter jumpers that short-circuited offensive sets. Offering zero resistance or hustle plays to offset the misses, his minutes were a quick negative for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Instant vertical spacing and decisive rim-running maximized a highly productive micro-shift. By immediately converting dump-off passes and sealing his man in the paint, he provided a massive per-minute boost to the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +9.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Flashed briefly with a quick interior finish but otherwise failed to leave a footprint. His short run lacked the disruptive defensive energy usually associated with his profile, resulting in a neutral presence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 2.7m -1.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 2.7m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Frantic energy in transition and quick closeouts salvaged a brief appearance. Although his offensive execution was sloppy, his willingness to dive for loose balls kept his impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jeff Green 2.7m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Essentially operated as a cardio participant during a brief rotation shift. He maintained structural integrity on defense but generated absolutely zero offensive gravity to impact the scoreboard.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0