Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAL lead MIA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIA 2P — 3P —
LAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Jaquez Jr. Open 11/16 +1.6
Wiggins 6/16 -4.2
Adebayo Hard 6/11 +1.8
Larsson 6/10 +1.2
Fontecchio Hard 2/10 -4.4
Jović 3/8 -1.9
Mitchell 3/5 +1.9
Smith 3/5 +1.1
Ware 3/3 +3.4

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Reaves Hard 9/22 +0.3
Dončić Hard 9/22 -3.8
LaRavia Open 10/13 +6.7
Hachimura 6/12 +2.2
Smart Hard 4/9 +2.2
Hayes Open 7/7 +5.9
Knecht Hard 1/4 -1.1
James 1/4 -2.8
Vanderbilt Open 1/2 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIA
LAL
43/84 Field Goals 48/95
51.2% Field Goal % 50.5%
9/33 3-Pointers 15/46
27.3% 3-Point % 32.6%
25/36 Free Throws 19/23
69.4% Free Throw % 82.6%
60.1% True Shooting % 61.8%
51 Total Rebounds 54
9 Offensive 8
33 Defensive 33
29 Assists 33
1.93 Assist/TO Ratio 2.75
15 Turnovers 11
7 Steals 14
3 Blocks 2
20 Fouls 26
66 Points in Paint 60
20 Fast Break Pts 19
16 Points off TOs 19
16 Second Chance Pts 14
56 Bench Points 34
0 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jake LaRavia
25 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 34.6 MIN
+32.6
2
Bam Adebayo
17 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 36.3 MIN
+25.63
3
Luka Dončić
29 PTS · 11 REB · 10 AST · 38.3 MIN
+20.61
4
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
31 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 34.7 MIN
+20.32
5
Jaxson Hayes
15 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 32.4 MIN
+16.96
6
Austin Reaves
26 PTS · 4 REB · 11 AST · 37.7 MIN
+14.44
7
Pelle Larsson
17 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 26.0 MIN
+14.11
8
Marcus Smart
11 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 26.7 MIN
+12.12
9
Rui Hachimura
15 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 31.0 MIN
+10.64
10
Kel'el Ware
7 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 11.5 MIN
+7.15
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:13 J. LaRavia REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 120–130
Q4 0:15 MISS J. Jaquez Jr. Free Throw 1 of 1 120–130
Q4 0:15 M. Smart shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Jaquez Jr. 1 FT) 120–130
Q4 0:15 J. Jaquez Jr. driving Layup (31 PTS) 120–130
Q4 0:22 L. Dončić Free Throw 2 of 2 (29 PTS) 118–130
Q4 0:22 L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 2 (28 PTS) 118–129
Q4 0:22 A. Wiggins shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Dončić 2 FT) 118–128
Q4 0:45 P. Larsson cutting DUNK (17 PTS) (D. Mitchell 8 AST) 118–128
Q4 0:52 L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 1 (27 PTS) 116–128
Q4 0:52 P. Larsson shooting personal FOUL (4 PF) (Dončić 1 FT) 116–127
Q4 0:52 L. Dončić Layup (26 PTS) (A. Reaves 11 AST) 116–127
Q4 0:56 TEAM offensive REBOUND 116–125
Q4 0:56 MISS L. Dončić 25' 3PT 116–125
Q4 1:21 J. Jaquez Jr. 7' Hook (29 PTS) 116–125
Q4 1:22 J. Jaquez Jr. REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 114–125

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

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.3m
29
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+13.5

Overcame a brutal perimeter shooting slump by relentlessly manipulating the pick-and-roll to generate high-quality looks for teammates. His surprisingly robust defensive rating stemmed from excellent positional rebounding and quick hands in the post to strip driving forwards.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 1/11 (9.1%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Austin Reaves 37.7m
26
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
+6.4

Sabotaged his own playmaking brilliance by forcing ten missed threes, many of which came early in the shot clock. The high volume of empty perimeter looks allowed the defense to leak out, dragging his overall impact into the negative despite his heavy assist load.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +6.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaxson Hayes 32.4m
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.4

Dominated the dunker spot with flawless finishing and aggressive offensive rebounding that kept possessions alive. His vertical spacing forced the opposing center to stay glued to the paint, opening up driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 107.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +15.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rui Hachimura 31.0m
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Bled value during transition defense, frequently failing to match up which allowed easy leak-out layups. His efficient spot-up shooting was ultimately overshadowed by these costly lapses in awareness on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 26.7m
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Set a violent, physical tone at the point of attack, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs to spike his hustle metrics. Hitting timely perimeter shots punished the defense for going under screens, perfectly complementing his elite defensive disruption.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 34.6m
25
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+29.3

Shattered his usual production by expertly cutting baseline against a sleepy defense, converting almost every touch into high-value points. He paired this offensive masterclass with suffocating weak-side help defense, completely erasing the opponent's secondary scoring options.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +22.3
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense +5.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
Bronny James 18.1m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Played with high energy at the point of attack, navigating screens well to generate a solid defensive rating. However, his offensive hesitancy and failure to capitalize on wide-open spot-up opportunities severely cramped the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.7

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game, looking lost on several defensive rotations that led to open corner threes. His inability to create separation on offense resulted in contested, low-percentage looks that stalled the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Provided a brief but stabilizing presence with switchable defense across three positions. His limited minutes restricted his overall influence, but he executed his defensive assignments without making any costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 37.0m
15
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Impact tanked due to a high volume of empty possessions, specifically clanking five threes that stalled the half-court offense. Despite solid perimeter containment that boosted his defensive metrics, his inability to convert open looks allowed the defense to sag off him and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +10.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Bam Adebayo 36.3m
17
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+22.5

Anchored the interior with exceptional rim protection and switchability, driving a massive defensive rating. While his perimeter jumper wasn't falling, his decisive roll-gravity and timely passing out of double teams kept the offensive flow highly efficient.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +10.2
Defense +7.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 31.6m
8
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.6

A stark contrast between decent playmaking and severe off-ball liabilities dragged down his overall impact. Opponents aggressively exploited his size in the pick-and-roll, negating the value of his passing with easy blow-by scores on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 26.0m
17
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.3

Kept his hot streak alive by consistently attacking closeouts and making the right extra pass. His offensive efficiency drove his positive impact, though a lack of high-leverage defensive plays kept his overall ceiling modest.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 11.5m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Maximized his limited run by playing strictly within his role as a lob threat and rim-runner. Perfect execution on his interior touches provided a clean, mistake-free offensive boost without forcing bad shots.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
31
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.5

Punished mismatches in the post and mid-range with elite footwork, driving a massive spike in his scoring efficiency. His offensive dominance masked a relatively quiet night on the defensive glass and in help-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 9/13 (69.2%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +25.1
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Settled for heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock, leading to long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. His negative defensive impact compounded the poor shot selection, as he frequently lost his man on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

Paralyzed the offensive spacing by forcing poor perimeter shots, allowing defenders to aggressively pack the paint. Even though he competed hard on closeouts, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions cratered his net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 16.4m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Completely flipped the game's momentum with relentless ball pressure and deflections that fueled his massive hustle rating. His sudden scoring burst was just a bonus on top of the havoc he wreaked in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2