Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MEM lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
MEM 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 169 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 14/27 +6.7
Reaves Hard 5/14 -2.3
Smart Hard 5/8 +2.7
LaRavia Open 5/8 +0.9
Ayton 4/6 +1.8
Knecht Hard 2/5 -0.1
Hachimura Hard 2/4 +1.5
Vanderbilt 1/2 -0.5
Hayes Open 1/2 -0.8

MEM MEM Shot-making Δ

Wells 7/16 -1.9
Morant Hard 3/14 -7.6
Aldama 3/12 -6.5
Coward 4/11 -4.5
Williams Jr. Hard 3/9 -2.5
Jackson Jr. Hard 6/8 +6.8
Landale 6/8 +5.6
Caldwell-Pope 4/7 +2.3
Spencer Hard 3/6 +1.8
Konchar Hard 2/2 +3.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
MEM
39/76 Field Goals 41/93
51.3% Field Goal % 44.1%
13/38 3-Pointers 14/45
34.2% 3-Point % 31.1%
26/33 Free Throws 16/19
78.8% Free Throw % 84.2%
64.6% True Shooting % 55.2%
49 Total Rebounds 51
5 Offensive 13
35 Defensive 29
24 Assists 28
1.60 Assist/TO Ratio 2.55
13 Turnovers 11
8 Steals 9
3 Blocks 0
16 Fouls 25
46 Points in Paint 46
10 Fast Break Pts 19
15 Points off TOs 18
10 Second Chance Pts 13
22 Bench Points 45
12 Largest Lead 15
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luka Dončić
44 PTS · 12 REB · 6 AST · 38.8 MIN
+25.56
2
Jake LaRavia
13 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 23.2 MIN
+17.88
3
Jock Landale
16 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 25.4 MIN
+16.7
4
Cedric Coward
13 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 26.2 MIN
+16.01
5
Austin Reaves
21 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 36.1 MIN
+13.5
6
Cam Spencer
12 PTS · 0 REB · 3 AST · 18.6 MIN
+12.03
7
Jaylen Wells
16 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 26.8 MIN
+11.77
8
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
12 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 24.4 MIN
+10.62
9
Marcus Smart
12 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 34.8 MIN
+8.78
10
John Konchar
6 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 12.7 MIN
+6.55
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 J. Wells driving DUNK (16 PTS) 117–112
Q4 0:02 J. Wells REBOUND (Off:4 Def:3) 117–110
Q4 0:04 MISS J. Wells step back 3PT 117–110
Q4 0:07 A. Reaves Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 117–110
Q4 0:07 A. Reaves Free Throw 1 of 2 (20 PTS) 116–110
Q4 0:07 J. Jackson Jr. take personal FOUL (6 PF) (Reaves 2 FT) 115–110
Q4 0:14 J. Wells driving finger roll Layup (14 PTS) 115–110
Q4 0:18 J. Wells REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 115–108
Q4 0:20 MISS J. Wells 25' running pullup 3PT 115–108
Q4 0:22 J. Wells REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 115–108
Q4 0:25 MISS L. Dončić 3PT 115–108
Q4 0:47 J. Wells 26' 3PT (12 PTS) (K. Caldwell-Pope 5 AST) 115–108
Q4 0:54 L. Dončić Free Throw 2 of 2 (44 PTS) 115–105
Q4 0:54 L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 2 (43 PTS) 114–105
Q4 0:54 J. Wells shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Dončić 2 FT) 113–105

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

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

A disastrous defensive showing completely erased the value of his highly efficient interior scoring. He was repeatedly bullied in the post and committed multiple shooting fouls that gifted the opponent easy points. The stark negative defensive score highlights his inability to anchor the paint without fouling.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja Morant 31.0m
8
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.1

A catastrophic shooting performance and poor shot selection cratered his overall impact. He repeatedly forced heavily contested drives into traffic, resulting in empty possessions and transition opportunities going the other way. Even above-average defensive effort couldn't salvage the damage done by his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 26.8m
16
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.9

Kept his impact positive through sheer hustle and relentless off-ball movement, despite a rough shooting night from beyond the arc. The volume of missed perimeter shots heavily taxed his overall rating, but he compensated by generating extra possessions. His ability to attack closeouts when the deep ball wasn't falling showcased vital offensive versatility.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jock Landale 25.4m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Capitalized on excellent pick-and-roll synergy, finishing strongly through contact to drive a high positive score. His fundamental box-outs and hard screens created immense value that didn't always show up in his personal stat line. A few defensive lapses in drop coverage slightly limited what was otherwise a dominant interior performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.6

Efficient spot-up shooting and disciplined closeouts kept his impact in the green. However, a handful of uncharacteristic ball-handling errors in transition prevented a higher total score. He executed his 3-and-D role perfectly during the third quarter, stretching the floor and containing dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 26.4m
7
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Settled for low-quality perimeter looks, which severely penalized his impact score as the misses piled up. While he provided solid weak-side rim protection, his inability to stretch the floor effectively cramped the half-court offense. The negative total reflects a player who actively hurt his team's scoring efficiency despite decent defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 29.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +10.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Defensive dominance and elite rebounding completely overshadowed a subpar shooting night. He smothered his matchups on the perimeter and generated massive value through deflections and contested shots. His relentless motor during a pivotal third-quarter run dictated the physical tone of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Spencer 18.6m
12
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Played a highly disciplined game, maximizing his impact by taking only what the defense gave him. His quick decision-making against defensive rotations kept the ball moving and prevented stagnant possessions. Smart positional defense and timely closeouts further boosted his positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.0

Dragged down by erratic shot selection and an inability to stay in front of his man on the perimeter. The combination of bricked threes and defensive breakdowns compounded into a severely negative impact. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently leaving his teammates in compromised rotational situations.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
John Konchar 12.7m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Delivered a perfectly efficient, low-mistake stint that kept the offensive machinery humming. He didn't force any action, instead capitalizing on broken plays and open spot-up opportunities. His conservative but effective approach yielded a modest but undeniably positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.8m
44
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+37.8

Offensive dominance drove a massive positive impact, anchored by his ability to dictate the pick-and-roll pace. The heavy volume of missed threes and inevitable high-usage turnovers slightly suppressed his ceiling, though his sheer scoring gravity compensated for the errors. He consistently punished switches, hunting mismatches to generate high-quality looks for himself and others.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 44.7%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +32.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +9.6
Hustle +14.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Rui Hachimura 38.1m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

A severe lack of offensive aggression paired with costly defensive fouls plummeted his overall value. He disappeared for long stretches on the perimeter, failing to exploit favorable matchups against smaller wings. The stark negative impact score reflects a player who gave away free points at the stripe while contributing almost nothing to the scoring margin.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Austin Reaves 36.1m
21
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Poor shot selection and a high volume of missed jumpers severely penalized his overall rating. While he generated decent value through playmaking, forcing contested looks late in the shot clock bled away possessions. His defensive rotations were sharp, but the offensive inefficiency proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 34.8m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

Exceptional defensive activity and hustle metrics were entirely undone by a staggering volume of live-ball turnovers. Despite efficient shot-making when he kept the ball, his careless passing in the half-court repeatedly ignited opponent transition breaks. The massive gap between his positive peripheral stats and negative total impact highlights a disastrous floor-general performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 16.7m
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Kept his impact afloat with efficient finishing around the rim, but his total score was dragged down by a complete inability to secure the glass. His failure to box out the opposing bigs during a crucial second-half stretch allowed second-chance opportunities that negated his offensive efficiency. His screen-setting was solid, yet the lack of interior presence on defense limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -51.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 23.4m
2
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.6

Strong rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes were completely offset by costly offensive fouls and illegal screens. He struggled to execute dribble hand-offs cleanly, repeatedly turning the ball over and killing offensive momentum. Despite solid defensive metrics, his inability to play a mistake-free game on the other end dragged him into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 23.2m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Elite defensive positioning and relentless hustle plays defined a highly impactful two-way performance. He maximized his minutes by taking only high-percentage shots and blowing up opponent actions on the weak side. The synergy between his off-ball movement and disruptive length resulted in a stellar overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Failed to generate enough perimeter gravity to justify his minutes, struggling to separate from physical defenders. A couple of sloppy turnovers and missed rotations in transition defense further eroded his impact. He was largely invisible during a crucial second-quarter stretch, failing to capitalize on the spacing provided by the primary playmakers.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Provided exactly neutral value during a brief stint, balancing active perimeter defense with offensive invisibility. He effectively neutralized his primary assignment on the wing but clogged the spacing on the other end. The lack of volume in both mistakes and contributions resulted in a perfectly flat impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0