Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIN lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
MIN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 165 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Reaves Hard 9/24 -3.0
Hachimura 7/14 +0.8
Knecht 7/12 +2.3
LaRavia 10/11 +12.9
Ayton 8/11 +5.3
Smith Jr. Hard 2/6 -1.0
Vanderbilt Open 1/3 -1.9
Hayes Open 1/2 -0.6

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Randle 10/20 +2.9
McDaniels 11/19 +3.7
Reid Hard 2/10 -5.3
Dillingham Open 4/8 -1.0
DiVincenzo Hard 4/7 +3.9
Conley Hard 3/6 +2.1
Gobert Open 4/5 +1.0
Hyland Hard 3/4 +3.7
Shannon Jr. 0/3 -3.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
MIN
45/83 Field Goals 41/82
54.2% Field Goal % 50.0%
11/31 3-Pointers 15/30
35.5% 3-Point % 50.0%
15/22 Free Throws 18/22
68.2% Free Throw % 81.8%
62.6% True Shooting % 62.7%
49 Total Rebounds 43
11 Offensive 9
29 Defensive 25
34 Assists 30
1.79 Assist/TO Ratio 1.67
18 Turnovers 18
6 Steals 8
5 Blocks 5
22 Fouls 23
60 Points in Paint 44
13 Fast Break Pts 14
26 Points off TOs 22
14 Second Chance Pts 6
24 Bench Points 21
20 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaden McDaniels
30 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 41.0 MIN
+26.78
2
Julius Randle
33 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 35.5 MIN
+23.34
3
Jake LaRavia
27 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 37.3 MIN
+22.05
4
Austin Reaves
28 PTS · 1 REB · 16 AST · 39.6 MIN
+21.82
5
Dalton Knecht
15 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 36.3 MIN
+14.62
6
Deandre Ayton
17 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 35.3 MIN
+13.86
7
Mike Conley
8 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 28.4 MIN
+13.72
8
Donte DiVincenzo
14 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 33.7 MIN
+9.33
9
Rui Hachimura
17 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 37.2 MIN
+7.82
10
Rudy Gobert
9 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 38.2 MIN
+5.64
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 A. Reaves 12' driving floating Jump Shot (28 PTS) 116–115
Q4 0:06 R. Gobert personal FOUL (3 PF) 114–115
Q4 0:10 J. Randle driving finger roll Layup (33 PTS) 114–115
Q4 0:23 M. Conley REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 114–113
Q4 0:26 MISS A. Reaves 3PT 114–113
Q4 0:49 J. McDaniels DUNK (30 PTS) (M. Conley 6 AST) 114–113
Q4 1:09 J. LaRavia step out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 114–111
Q4 1:09 J. LaRavia REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 114–111
Q4 1:11 MISS D. Ayton driving floating Shot 114–111
Q4 1:38 J. McDaniels 25' 3PT running (28 PTS) (J. Randle 6 AST) 114–111
Q4 1:43 J. Randle REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 114–108
Q4 1:46 MISS A. Reaves 17' pullup Shot 114–108
Q4 2:08 J. Randle Free Throw 2 of 2 (31 PTS) 114–108
Q4 2:08 J. Randle Free Throw 1 of 2 (30 PTS) 114–107
Q4 2:08 A. Reaves shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Randle 2 FT) 114–106

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

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 41.0m
30
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+23.8

Two-way dominance defined a stellar outing, combining lockdown wing defense with hyper-efficient scoring. He punished defensive closeouts with decisive drives and capitalized on spot-up opportunities when the defense collapsed. His ability to neutralize the opponent's primary creator while carrying the offensive load was the game's turning point.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Scoring +23.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 38.2m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Impact suffered due to an inability to punish switches, allowing smaller defenders to front him without consequence. While his rim protection metrics remained solid, the offense stagnated when he was forced to make decisions in space. Opponents successfully neutralized his roll gravity by packing the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Julius Randle 35.5m
33
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+21.1

Bully-ball tactics and confident perimeter shooting created a matchup nightmare that anchored the offense. He consistently forced double teams on the block, though occasional tunnel vision prevented a higher playmaking yield. Maintaining his recent efficiency streak, he physically wore down the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +25.1
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +6.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.6

Timely perimeter shooting and active hands in passing lanes resulted in a marginally positive net rating. He provided crucial spacing during stagnant half-court sets, punishing late rotations with quick-trigger jumpers. A few ill-advised gambles on defense slightly dampened his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Mike Conley 28.4m
8
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.1

Veteran floor generalship and exceptional defensive positioning drove a steadying positive impact. He dictated the pace flawlessly, ensuring the offense didn't devolve into isolation-heavy sequences. Bouncing back from a recent shooting slump, his timely perimeter makes kept the defense honest.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
Naz Reid 22.3m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.2

A catastrophic shooting night tanked his value, as he repeatedly settled for contested looks early in the clock. Missing a staggering percentage of his attempts compared to his recent averages, his offensive struggles bled into transition defense. The inability to stretch the floor allowed the opposing frontcourt to camp in the lane.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

Complete offensive impotence severely hindered the second unit's flow during his stint. He failed to generate any downhill pressure, settling instead for low-percentage perimeter heaves that sparked opponent fast breaks. The lack of scoring punch made him a net negative despite decent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.3

Flashes of offensive burst were entirely offset by defensive liabilities at the point of attack. Opposing guards targeted him relentlessly in pick-and-roll actions, forcing the defense into constant rotation. His inability to navigate screens negated the value of his mid-range creation.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

High-efficiency microwave scoring provided a brief but necessary spark off the bench. He exploited drop coverages beautifully, punishing retreating bigs with confident pull-up jumpers. Defensive lapses off the ball prevented his rating from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 39.6m
28
pts
1
reb
16
ast
Impact
+11.9

Playmaking brilliance outweighed severe shooting inefficiencies to drive a highly positive impact. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages masterfully, consistently finding the roll man or weak-side shooters to generate high-value looks. Despite forcing several contested jumpers, his offensive orchestration dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/24 (37.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jake LaRavia 37.3m
27
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.5

A massive scoring explosion fueled an elite net rating, driven by near-perfect perimeter execution. Catch-and-shoot gravity warped the opposing defense, creating driving lanes for teammates all night. His off-ball movement was a constant headache for trailing defenders who repeatedly lost him through screens.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +24.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +7.2
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 37.2m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

High-volume shooting yielded diminishing returns, resulting in a negative net impact. While he doubled his recent scoring average, defensive lapses on the perimeter gave away much of that value. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings during transition sequences, allowing easy fast-break conversions.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 35.3m
17
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.3

Elite interior efficiency anchored his positive impact, continuing a streak of highly disciplined shot selection. He consistently sealed his man deep in the post, generating high-percentage looks that stabilized the offense. Strong rim deterrence further boosted his overall value by forcing opponents into tough floaters.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +7.8
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

Offensive invisibility dragged down his overall rating despite decent defensive metrics. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off, clogging the paint for primary creators. A stark drop-off from his recent scoring average highlighted his limitations as a finishing threat in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +14.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Poor spacing value from beyond the arc slightly dragged down an otherwise solid offensive showing. Defenders routinely went under screens, daring him to shoot and bogging down the team's offensive flow. He found some success attacking closeouts, but the lack of three-point gravity capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 12.7m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.1

Active screening and vertical spacing kept his impact in the green despite a massive drop in scoring volume. He generated multiple extra possessions through sheer physical effort on the offensive glass. Even without touches, his rim-running forced defensive rotations that opened up the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Forced attempts early in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions that hurt the team's momentum. His trigger-happy approach disrupted offensive rhythm during a crucial second-quarter stretch. A lack of secondary playmaking meant his missed jumpers were pure dead weight.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.1

A brief, purely cardio stint yielded a slightly negative rating due to complete offensive passivity. He failed to generate any rim pressure or initiate sets, essentially playing four-on-five on that end. Minor defensive rotations kept the score from tanking further during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +52.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1