GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 41.3m
38
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+24.0

An absolute masterclass in shot creation and efficiency, he dismantled the defensive scheme by scoring from all three levels with minimal wasted motion. His astronomical hustle metrics highlight a relentless motor that generated crucial extra possessions and completely broke the opponent's spirit. A devastating third-quarter scoring flurry where he hit three consecutive contested step-backs effectively ended the competitive phase of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 100.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.3m
Offense +35.8
Hustle +9.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +47.5
Avg player in 41.3m -23.5
Impact +24.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 40.3m
35
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+11.8

Dictated the pace of the game entirely on his terms, using his elite deceleration to consistently compromise the defensive shell. The combination of high-level shot-making and pinpoint skip passes ensured the offense hummed flawlessly whenever he was initiating the action. Manipulating the drop coverage to create wide-open corner looks for his teammates was the defining pattern of his night.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +7.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 40.3m -23.0
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Rui Hachimura 36.3m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

A heavy reliance on the three-point shot masked a complete inability to finish inside the arc or create for others. His extreme tunnel vision on offense led to stagnant possessions, allowing the defense to easily reset and exploit his side of the floor in transition. Getting completely walled off on his baseline drives was a recurring theme that tanked his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 36.3m -20.7
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 36.3m
17
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Absolute dominance in the pick-and-roll game fueled a highly efficient scoring night that punished the opposing frontcourt. His massive defensive impact stemmed from elite verticality and disciplined rim protection that completely erased the opponent's interior attack. Catching the ball on the short roll and making instantaneous reads defined his masterclass performance.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +10.2
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 36.3m -20.7
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S LeBron James 34.0m
13
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.7

Sluggish offensive execution and a tendency to settle for contested jumpers heavily dragged down his overall impact metric. While his playmaking vision remained intact, a string of unforced errors in the half-court stalled the team's momentum during critical stretches. A pattern of late-clock isolation possessions that resulted in long misses defined his negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 34.0m -19.5
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Gabe Vincent 22.9m
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Defensive struggles at the point of attack were the primary culprit for a deeply negative impact score, as opposing guards consistently blew past him. Even with a perfect shooting night from deep, his inability to contain dribble penetration forced the defense into constant, damaging rotations. Dying on high ball screens was a fatal pattern that allowed the opposing backcourt to generate easy paint touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.4
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 22.9m -13.1
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 13.5m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him virtually invisible on that end of the floor, completely stalling the second unit's flow. Without any scoring gravity to occupy defenders, his presence actively hindered the spacing and allowed opponents to aggressively trap the ball-handlers. Refusing to shoot open catch-and-shoot looks became a glaring issue that tanked his lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 13.5m -7.7
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 11.7m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Provided a brief spark as a lob threat, but his inability to anchor the defensive glass limited his overall effectiveness. Opponents successfully neutralized his athleticism by drawing him out to the perimeter, exposing his lateral quickness in space. Getting repeatedly sealed off under the basket by smaller, stronger players defined his negative defensive stint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 11.7m -6.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

A brief and ineffective stint saw him struggle to catch up to the speed of the game, resulting in a quick negative return. Missed rotations and a forced perimeter shot quickly earned him a spot back on the bench. Being a step slow on closeouts during his three minutes of action highlighted his current lack of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 3.7m -2.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 35.6m
13
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+4.7

Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume compared to his recent tear, his impact remained solidly positive due to elite connective passing and defensive disruption. High-level hustle metrics reflect a willingness to dive for loose balls and generate extra possessions when his own shot wasn't falling. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter defined his two-way value tonight.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 35.6m -20.3
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S P.J. Washington 35.2m
22
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

An aggressive offensive approach yielded a significant scoring bump, though a high volume of missed mid-range looks slightly capped his overall efficiency. His defensive versatility on the perimeter helped stabilize the rotation during crucial second-half stretches. Punishing smaller defenders in the post became the defining pattern of his successful offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 35.2m -20.2
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Anthony Davis 28.3m
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.4

Operating primarily as a defensive anchor and secondary hub, he didn't force his offense while still shooting at a highly efficient clip. His rim deterrence heavily influenced the opponent's shot selection, forcing them into contested floaters rather than deep paint attempts. A crucial third-quarter stretch of altered shots at the basket cemented his positive defensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 28.3m -16.2
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Max Christie 27.4m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Benefited from a hot shooting night from beyond the arc, but his overall impact was dragged into the negative by poor rotational awareness on the other end. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, neutralizing the value of his perimeter spacing. Getting caught on screens during the fourth quarter proved to be a costly pattern that tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 27.4m -15.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 23.4m
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

A massive departure from his recent scoring struggles, he found a rhythm by attacking closeouts and finishing decisively at the rim. His ability to punish drop coverage with timely pull-up jumpers provided a crucial secondary scoring punch. The defining element of his night was his relentless downhill pressure during the early transition phases.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 23.4m -13.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Relentless rim pressure and smart off-ball cutting formed the foundation of a highly efficient offensive showing. He consistently won the physical battles on the wing, using his size to disrupt passing lanes and spark transition opportunities. A series of timely back-door cuts in the second half completely broke the opponent's zone coverage.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 25.0m -14.2
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

High-energy hustle plays couldn't salvage an impact score that was cratered by poor shot selection and forced drives into traffic. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions heavily outweighed his commendable effort on 50/50 balls. Consistently settling for contested long twos early in the shot clock defined his negative offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 24.1m -13.8
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Perimeter gravity remains his primary weapon, but a lack of secondary counting stats and defensive slippage severely dampened his overall effectiveness. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, leading to defensive breakdowns that erased the value of his spot-up shooting. Getting blown by on straight-line drives was a damaging pattern that forced the defense into constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.9m -11.4
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Limited touches and a passive offensive approach resulted in a sharp decline from his usual scoring output. While he remained a deterrent in the paint, his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds allowed costly second-chance opportunities. Getting out-muscled on the weak side glass became a recurring issue that dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 17.5m -10.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Relegated to a fleeting garbage-time cameo, he lacked the runway to establish any positive or negative momentum. The microscopic sample size offered no insight into his current form, resulting in a negligible impact score. His night was defined entirely by his absence from the meaningful rotation until the final buzzer was imminent.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
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
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Inserted solely for the final minute of a decided contest, he essentially just ran out the clock. There was zero opportunity to impact the game's outcome or flow, keeping his net rating flat. Standing in the corner during the final possession was the extent of his involvement.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
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
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

End-of-bench duty restricted his involvement to a mere 70 seconds of mop-up action, yielding a near-zero impact. The lack of meaningful court time prevented him from contributing to the interior battle in any substantive way. Grabbing a single uncontested rebound as time expired was his only interaction with the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 1.2m -0.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0