Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAL lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
LAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 167 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Thompson Open 12/19 +1.7
Durant Hard 8/14 +7.2
Eason 6/14 -3.3
Sheppard Hard 5/10 +1.7
Smith Jr. 6/9 +4.4
Sengun 5/7 +3.3
Capela Open 3/4 +0.9
Okogie 0/4 -4.2
Adams Open 2/3 -0.2
Tate Open 1/2 -0.3

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 9/17 +4.1
James 7/13 -0.3
Reaves 5/8 +3.1
Smart 3/8 -2.7
Ayton 5/6 +4.0
Vanderbilt 4/6 +3.6
Hachimura Hard 0/6 -5.6
LaRavia 2/5 -0.7
Kleber 1/4 -2.7
Thiero Open 1/2 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
LAL
48/90 Field Goals 39/77
53.3% Field Goal % 50.6%
8/24 3-Pointers 11/30
33.3% 3-Point % 36.7%
15/19 Free Throws 7/11
78.9% Free Throw % 63.6%
60.5% True Shooting % 58.7%
58 Total Rebounds 31
17 Offensive 7
31 Defensive 18
24 Assists 19
1.50 Assist/TO Ratio 1.19
15 Turnovers 16
10 Steals 7
6 Blocks 5
13 Fouls 17
68 Points in Paint 52
16 Fast Break Pts 11
23 Points off TOs 11
24 Second Chance Pts 10
25 Bench Points 31
24 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kevin Durant
25 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 33.5 MIN
+23.78
2
Amen Thompson
26 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 31.9 MIN
+23.72
3
Jabari Smith Jr.
16 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 35.7 MIN
+21.59
4
Jarred Vanderbilt
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 26.4 MIN
+13.82
5
Tari Eason
13 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 26.1 MIN
+13.28
6
LeBron James
18 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 32.4 MIN
+12.62
7
Luka Dončić
25 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 33.9 MIN
+11.18
8
Alperen Sengun
14 PTS · 12 REB · 4 AST · 31.2 MIN
+10.77
9
Reed Sheppard
13 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 19.3 MIN
+10.46
10
Clint Capela
6 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 2.7 MIN
+9.01
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 C. Capela tip Layup (6 PTS) 119–96
Q4 0:13 C. Capela REBOUND (Off:3 Def:0) 117–96
Q4 0:13 MISS C. Capela tip Layup 117–96
Q4 0:13 C. Capela REBOUND (Off:2 Def:0) 117–96
Q4 0:14 MISS J. Tate driving Hook 117–96
Q4 0:33 B. James 25' 3PT step back (3 PTS) 117–96
Q4 0:42 J. Tate driving Layup (2 PTS) (A. Holiday 1 AST) 117–93
Q4 0:55 D. Knecht driving reverse Layup (2 PTS) (M. Kleber 1 AST) 115–93
Q4 1:10 A. Thiero REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 115–91
Q4 1:12 MISS J. Davison 25' pullup 3PT 115–91
Q4 1:30 M. Kleber offensive foul TURNOVER (1 TO) 115–91
Q4 1:30 M. Kleber offensive FOUL (2 PF) 115–91
Q4 1:33 J. Davison personal FOUL (1 PF) 115–91
Q4 1:41 C. Capela tip Layup (4 PTS) 115–91
Q4 1:41 C. Capela REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 113–91

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Deandre Ayton 36.3m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

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
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
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
+11.4

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
Scoring +17.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -13.0
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
+8.1

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
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -7.1
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
-14.2

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
Scoring -4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
+1.1

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
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
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
-4.6

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
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
+5.7

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
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
-1.2

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
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
-10.6

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
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
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
-5.9

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

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
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
16
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+19.7

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
Scoring +13.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
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
+24.4

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
Scoring +21.2
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -7.8
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
+22.0

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
Scoring +20.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
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
+15.0

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
Scoring +12.6
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +15.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -13.7
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
+9.4

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
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.3
Turnovers -3.1
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
+4.5

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
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +11.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
+6.0

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
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
-10.6

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
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
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
-14.9

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
Scoring -3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
-9.9

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
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 2.7m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

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
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
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
-8.0

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

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
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

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
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0