Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
SAC lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
SAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 181 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Reaves Hard 12/22 +9.0
Ayton Open 10/17 +1.1
Hachimura 7/10 +3.4
LaRavia 3/10 -4.0
Smart Hard 3/8 -2.1
Vanderbilt Open 3/5 -0.8
Vincent Hard 0/4 -3.7
Knecht Hard 1/3 -1.1
Mañon Hard 0/1 -1.1

SAC SAC Shot-making Δ

LaVine 12/24 +2.6
DeRozan Hard 9/22 -0.8
Schröder Hard 7/18 -0.6
Westbrook 6/12 +2.0
Monk Hard 5/9 +4.8
Sabonis 4/8 +0.5
Ellis Hard 2/5 -0.8
Cardwell Hard 0/1 -1.1
Eubanks Open 0/1 -1.2
Šarić Open 0/1 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
SAC
39/80 Field Goals 45/101
48.8% Field Goal % 44.6%
8/25 3-Pointers 18/43
32.0% 3-Point % 41.9%
41/46 Free Throws 12/18
89.1% Free Throw % 66.7%
63.3% True Shooting % 55.1%
56 Total Rebounds 52
10 Offensive 13
37 Defensive 27
26 Assists 27
1.53 Assist/TO Ratio 1.69
17 Turnovers 15
9 Steals 13
3 Blocks 4
17 Fouls 26
54 Points in Paint 46
14 Fast Break Pts 16
27 Points off TOs 24
15 Second Chance Pts 21
22 Bench Points 33
11 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Austin Reaves
51 PTS · 11 REB · 9 AST · 39.1 MIN
+50.51
2
Zach LaVine
32 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 40.0 MIN
+19.66
3
Deandre Ayton
22 PTS · 15 REB · 2 AST · 36.0 MIN
+19.18
4
Rui Hachimura
18 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 40.2 MIN
+15.91
5
Russell Westbrook
18 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 27.2 MIN
+15.42
6
Dennis Schröder
18 PTS · 2 REB · 12 AST · 35.0 MIN
+15.16
7
Domantas Sabonis
10 PTS · 14 REB · 3 AST · 30.5 MIN
+14.58
8
Malik Monk
15 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 24.5 MIN
+14.34
9
DeMar DeRozan
21 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 39.9 MIN
+13.35
10
Jake LaRavia
11 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 32.5 MIN
+7.62
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 A. Reaves REBOUND (Off:1 Def:10) 127–120
Q4 0:01 MISS D. Schröder 27' 3PT 127–120
Q4 0:04 TEAM defensive REBOUND 127–120
Q4 0:06 MISS D. Ayton Free Throw 2 of 2 127–120
Q4 0:06 D. Ayton Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 127–120
Q4 0:06 R. Westbrook personal FOUL (1 PF) (Ayton 2 FT) 126–120
Q4 0:06 D. Ayton REBOUND (Off:5 Def:10) 126–120
Q4 0:07 MISS D. Sabonis Free Throw 2 of 2 126–120
Q4 0:07 D. Sabonis Free Throw 1 of 2 (10 PTS) 126–120
Q4 0:07 A. Reaves personal FOUL (1 PF) (Sabonis 2 FT) 126–119
Q4 0:23 A. Reaves Free Throw 2 of 2 (51 PTS) 126–119
Q4 0:23 A. Reaves Free Throw 1 of 2 (50 PTS) 125–119
Q4 0:23 Z. LaVine personal FOUL (1 PF) (Reaves 2 FT) 124–119
Q4 0:23 J. Vanderbilt REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 124–119
Q4 0:25 MISS D. Schröder 7' driving Layup 124–119

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

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 40.0m
32
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+19.6

High-volume shot creation yielded impressive counting stats, but isolation-heavy possessions frequently stalled the broader offensive flow. Defensive lapses at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that compromised the team's shell. The massive disparity between his box score production and neutral total impact points to empty-calorie scoring that gave back points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 25.2%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Scoring +23.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +7.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 39.9m
21
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

Bogged down the half-court offense with a heavy diet of contested mid-range pull-ups that failed to drop at his usual rate. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, severely damaging his net impact. Despite decent defensive metrics, his inability to generate rim pressure or draw fouls made this a highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +11.9
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
2
reb
12
ast
Impact
+1.1

Dictated the pace well through pick-and-roll orchestration, but his shot selection devolved into low-percentage perimeter heaves late in the clock. The high volume of missed jumpers frequently put the transition defense at a disadvantage. A spike in scoring masked the structural damage caused by his inefficient ball dominance.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Operated primarily as a high-post hub, using his elite screening to free up shooters and keep the offense humming. His physical rebounding limited second-chance points for the opposition, anchoring a solid defensive effort. While his own shot volume was low, his connective passing and positional defense drove a steady, positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +12.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keon Ellis 18.0m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Struggled to replicate his recent offensive production, frequently passing up open looks and shrinking the floor. His defensive hustle was evident in passing lanes, but it wasn't enough to overcome his offensive timidity. The negative total impact reflects a player who became a liability in half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.9

An uncharacteristically hot shooting night from beyond the arc punished defenders who dared to go under screens. However, his erratic decision-making in traffic and defensive gambles mitigated the value of his scoring outburst. The near-neutral total impact perfectly encapsulates the chaotic trade-off of his high-variance playstyle.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Malik Monk 24.5m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Injected immediate life into the second unit with decisive downhill drives and crisp perimeter shot-making. His defensive engagement was surprisingly robust, fighting through screens and generating deflections that sparked transition opportunities. This two-way energy surge was the defining catalyst for the bench unit's overall success.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.3

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to establish deep post position or roll with intent. While he battled admirably on the defensive interior, his inability to punish switches allowed the defense to aggressively trap the perimeter. The stark drop-off from his recent efficient scoring highlights a failure to adapt to the opponent's physicality.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.9

Looked a step slow during his short stint, struggling to contain quicker forwards on the perimeter. Offensively, he failed to leverage his playmaking from the elbows, resulting in stagnant possessions. The negative impact was swift and directly tied to his defensive immobility.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Provided a quick burst of rim protection during a brief rotational stint, deterring a couple of drives to the basket. His offensive involvement was negligible, but he executed his defensive assignments flawlessly. A perfectly fine placeholder performance that yielded a slight positive bump.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

Saw his minutes drastically slashed and failed to make any offensive contribution during his brief appearance. The lack of aggression was a stark departure from his recent double-digit scoring average. He simply existed on the floor without altering the geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Logged barely over a minute of action, leaving virtually no footprint on the game. He simply filled a jersey during a dead-ball transition period. The fractional negative impact is statistical noise from a single possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Rui Hachimura 40.2m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Offensive efficiency was pristine on a diet of high-percentage looks, capitalizing on defensive rotations to find soft spots. However, his overall impact remained muted due to defensive lapses in transition that gave back much of his scoring value. A strong hustle rating indicates solid effort on 50/50 balls, but execution on the margins kept his net influence neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Austin Reaves 39.1m
51
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+56.8

An absolute offensive masterclass driven by lethal perimeter shot-making and impeccable decision-making out of the pick-and-roll. He consistently punished drop coverage by pulling up from deep, stretching the defense to its absolute breaking point. Excellent hustle and defensive metrics show he remained fully engaged on both ends, culminating in a dominant two-way showcase.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 21/22 (95.5%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +43.3
Creation +7.4
Shot Making +9.0
Hustle +9.1
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 36.0m
22
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.1

Dominated the interior through sheer physical imposition, securing second-chance opportunities that constantly fueled the offense. His defensive anchoring was elite, consistently altering shots at the rim and sealing off the paint from slashers. This sustained stretch of hyper-efficient finishing at the basket forced the defense into scrambling double-teams.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +17.1
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Marcus Smart 30.8m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite an uptick in scoring volume compared to recent outings, poor perimeter shot selection dragged down his overall efficiency. Spacing suffered as he failed to connect from deep, allowing defenders to sag into the paint and clog driving lanes. His defensive metrics couldn't salvage a performance defined by stalled half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Gabe Vincent 18.9m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

Completely neutralized on the offensive end, failing to generate any dribble penetration or connect on open spot-up looks. The inability to space the floor allowed opponents to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers without consequence. While he provided a slight defensive bump, the offensive dead weight resulted in a severely negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jake LaRavia 32.5m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggled to find a rhythm offensively, forcing several contested looks early in the shot clock that led to empty possessions. The resulting transition opportunities for the opponent negated his otherwise solid defensive positioning. A few timely hustle plays kept his floor from collapsing entirely, but an inefficient shot profile defined his night.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Generated solid value through high-motor defensive rotations and relentless activity on the glass. However, his lack of offensive gravity allowed his matchup to roam freely as a free safety, stifling the team's half-court flow. The hustle metrics are strong, but structural offensive limitations ultimately dragged his total impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.0

Failed to make a dent during his brief stint, struggling to navigate through screens to find open catch-and-shoot opportunities. His lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. The negative impact stems directly from an inability to bend the defense or create distinct advantages.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.7

Barely registered a pulse during garbage time minutes, primarily serving as a placeholder on the wing. A quick missed jumper highlighted a lack of offensive flow during his brief run. Defensive positioning was adequate, keeping his overall impact close to neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0