GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.3m
43
pts
9
reb
13
ast
Impact
+17.9

Total offensive domination masked a high volume of missed perimeter shots, with his playmaking completely overwhelming the opposing scheme. He dictated every pick-and-roll possession, forcing the defense into impossible choices that resulted in wide-open looks for teammates. Surprisingly active hands on defense (+4.5 Def) added crucial transition opportunities to his massive offensive load.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +32.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +40.5
Avg player in 38.3m -22.6
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Austin Reaves 35.0m
31
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.9

A masterclass in two-way efficiency, driven by flawless shot selection and suffocating perimeter defense (+7.2 Def). He relentlessly attacked closeouts and made perfect reads, punishing the defense every time they lost him in rotation. His ability to generate steals and deflections ignited the transition attack, cementing a massive net-positive performance.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.2%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +30.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +42.7
Avg player in 35.0m -20.8
Impact +21.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S LeBron James 32.3m
25
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.6

Elite offensive orchestration and timely defensive rotations (+4.5 Def) drove a highly positive performance. He consistently manipulated the defense in the half-court, generating high-quality looks while punishing mismatches in the post. A few defensive lapses in transition kept his score from entering the stratosphere, but his control over the game's tempo was absolute.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 32.3m -19.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 30.9m
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Defensive apathy and a lack of rebounding presence severely punished Hachimura's overall impact despite his efficient scoring. Opponents repeatedly attacked his closeouts, exposing his slow lateral movement on the perimeter. The resulting defensive breakdowns completely erased the value of his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 30.9m -18.3
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaxson Hayes 29.8m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

Relentless energy in the paint (+5.6 Hustle) and excellent rim deterrence fueled a highly productive shift. He dominated the interior by contesting shots without fouling and sprinting the floor to create early offense. His vertical spacing and activity level completely changed the geometry of the game while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 29.8m -17.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Marcus Smart 20.1m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Classic grit-and-grind impact defined this stint, highlighted by elite hustle metrics (+5.7) and disruptive point-of-attack defense. He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs and secured critical loose balls that extended possessions. Smart shot selection ensured he didn't give away the value he created on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 20.1m -12.0
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 18.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

A disastrous offensive shift was defined by forced, contested jumpers that fueled opponent fast breaks. His inability to stay in front of his man defensively compounded the damage of his empty offensive possessions. The combination of poor shot quality and defensive breakdowns resulted in a massive negative swing for the team.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 18.0m -10.6
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 17.1m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Perfect shooting efficiency was entirely offset by a lack of overall volume and defensive rebounding. He provided solid weak-side help (+3.6 Def) but struggled to secure possessions, allowing second-chance points that zeroed out his impact. A perfectly neutral performance where his offensive execution balanced out his physical limitations.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 17.1m -10.1
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 13.7m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Offensive hesitancy and an inability to anchor the defense against physical bigs dragged his rating into the red. He passed up open perimeter looks, bogging down the offensive flow and allowing the defense to pack the paint. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, his lack of interior resistance became a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 13.7m -8.1
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A fleeting appearance at the end of the game yielded a slight negative score due to a minor defensive breakdown. He failed to record any positive actions to offset the opponent's late scoring. The sample size was entirely negligible.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Logged barely over a minute of garbage time without touching the ball or impacting a defensive rotation. The negative score simply reflects the opponent scoring during his brief time on the floor. An entirely uneventful stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

A missed perimeter look during late-game minutes drove his impact score into the negative. He managed to facilitate one play but otherwise struggled to leave a mark on the game's flow. The brief cameo offered little opportunity for meaningful contribution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 1.2m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Made the most of a tiny window by executing offensively and providing immediate defensive resistance (+2.3 Def). He altered a shot at the rim and converted on his end, maximizing his per-minute production. A highly efficient burst of garbage-time productivity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Ivica Zubac 36.9m
10
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.6

Strong defensive rim protection (+6.5 Def) couldn't completely overcome the damage done by offensive inefficiency and missed bunnies around the basket. He anchored the paint well during half-court sets, altering several drives to the rim. However, finishing struggles on the other end ultimately suppressed his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 36.9m -21.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S James Harden 36.8m
29
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.0

High-volume perimeter misses heavily taxed an otherwise brilliant playmaking display. He generated excellent looks for teammates and surprisingly chipped in with active hands in the passing lanes (+4.2 Hustle). The sheer number of empty possessions from deep prevented his net impact from matching his massive offensive load.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 36.8m -21.8
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S John Collins 34.0m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A highly efficient scoring night was undercut by defensive lapses and a lack of secondary playmaking. His inability to secure critical defensive rebounding positioning allowed second-chance opportunities that negated his offensive contributions. While the stretch-big role yielded great spacing, his interior resistance remained a glaring vulnerability.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 34.0m -20.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 30.2m
19
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Relentless point-of-attack defense and opportunistic scoring provided a steadying presence throughout his shift. His ability to navigate screens and pressure ball-handlers disrupted the opponent's offensive flow during key second-half stretches. Smart shot selection kept his efficiency high, allowing him to finish with a modest but positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 30.2m -17.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kawhi Leonard 27.6m
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Leonard's overall impact dipped into the negative despite decent defensive metrics, largely due to an inefficient shot profile from the perimeter. Struggling to find a rhythm against physical wing coverage, he forced too many contested jumpers that led to empty possessions. The resulting missed shots dragged down a performance that otherwise featured solid rotational defense.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 27.6m -16.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Veteran savvy defined this stint, with Batum making several crucial weak-side rotations to blow up opponent actions. His flawless shot selection and high-level hustle metrics (+4.2) perfectly complemented the primary scorers. He served as the ultimate connective tissue, making the right read on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 21.7m -12.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 21.2m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

A complete lack of hustle plays and negative defensive impact cratered Brown's overall rating. He was frequently targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, bleeding points on the defensive end. Even with perfect efficiency on his limited attempts, his inability to generate stops or secure 50/50 balls made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 21.2m -12.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 16.6m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite bringing tremendous energy and loose-ball recovery (+4.8 Hustle), Sanders struggled to find his footing offensively. His limited touches resulted in stalled possessions, and a lack of defensive resistance allowed opponents to exploit his matchup. The high-motor plays simply couldn't offset the offensive stagnation during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 16.6m -9.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Chris Paul 9.3m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief, quiet stint yielded a negative return due to a lack of overall activity and defensive impact. Operating primarily as a floor spacer rather than a primary initiator led to a stagnant offensive flow while he was on the court. Without his usual playmaking volume, his minimal defensive presence was exposed.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -67.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 9.3m -5.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Garbage time minutes resulted in a slight negative impact driven by a missed perimeter look. He showed a flash of activity on the glass but was otherwise invisible in the offensive flow. The sample size was too small to draw meaningful conclusions beyond the empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A pure cardio session at the end of the rotation left Telfort with a negative rating simply by being on the floor during an opponent run. He generated no measurable hustle or defensive impact. His presence was entirely inconsequential to the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Late-game mop-up duty resulted in a negative score entirely tied to the lineup's performance around him. He failed to register any tangible events on either end of the floor. The brief appearance offered no opportunity to evaluate his actual skill set.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0