Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
POR lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
POR 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Ayton Open 14/19 +6.0
Smith Jr. Hard 10/15 +11.5
Hachimura 10/15 +5.9
Smart 3/11 -4.7
LaRavia 5/10 -1.0
Knecht Hard 4/7 +1.2
James Hard 1/4 -1.2
Hayes Open 2/3 -0.2
Vanderbilt Open 1/1 +0.6

POR POR Shot-making Δ

Avdija 10/20 -0.1
Sharpe 8/17 -3.7
Camara Hard 5/13 -1.4
Holiday Hard 4/11 -3.7
Grant 6/10 +2.5
Murray Open 3/5 -0.4
Williams III Open 3/3 +1.8
Clingan Open 1/3 -1.9
Cissoko Open 2/2 +1.2
Love Hard 0/1 -0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
POR
50/85 Field Goals 42/85
58.8% Field Goal % 49.4%
9/23 3-Pointers 9/40
39.1% 3-Point % 22.5%
14/16 Free Throws 22/30
87.5% Free Throw % 73.3%
66.8% True Shooting % 58.6%
42 Total Rebounds 47
8 Offensive 15
26 Defensive 23
29 Assists 23
1.71 Assist/TO Ratio 1.28
17 Turnovers 18
11 Steals 13
5 Blocks 3
22 Fouls 18
64 Points in Paint 64
8 Fast Break Pts 20
25 Points off TOs 28
20 Second Chance Pts 26
38 Bench Points 35
14 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Deandre Ayton
29 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 30.6 MIN
+25.04
2
Rui Hachimura
28 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 37.6 MIN
+23.4
3
Nick Smith Jr.
25 PTS · 1 REB · 6 AST · 26.9 MIN
+20.74
4
Deni Avdija
33 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 36.2 MIN
+19.33
5
Shaedon Sharpe
23 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 27.9 MIN
+18.97
6
Jake LaRavia
11 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 36.5 MIN
+13.97
7
Jerami Grant
18 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 30.9 MIN
+10.94
8
Robert Williams III
6 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 14.5 MIN
+10.63
9
Sidy Cissoko
5 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 13.8 MIN
+10.63
10
Bronny James
5 PTS · 1 REB · 6 AST · 19.5 MIN
+8.37
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 D. Avdija running finger roll Layup (33 PTS) (J. Grant 4 AST) 123–115
Q4 0:23 S. Sharpe STEAL (3 STL) 123–113
Q4 0:23 M. Smart bad pass TURNOVER (5 TO) 123–113
Q4 0:41 J. Grant 26' 3PT (18 PTS) (J. Holiday 6 AST) 123–113
Q4 0:43 J. Holiday REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 123–110
Q4 0:45 MISS D. Avdija 29' 3PT 123–110
Q4 0:51 D. Ayton alley-oop DUNK (29 PTS) (N. Smith Jr. 6 AST) 123–110
Q4 1:09 D. Avdija driving DUNK (31 PTS) 121–110
Q4 1:12 R. Hachimura 14' pullup Jump Shot (28 PTS) (J. LaRavia 6 AST) 121–108
Q4 1:32 S. Sharpe Free Throw 1 of 1 (23 PTS) 119–108
Q4 1:32 J. LaRavia shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Sharpe 1 FT) 119–107
Q4 1:32 S. Sharpe running Layup (22 PTS) 119–107
Q4 1:35 S. Sharpe STEAL (2 STL) 119–105
Q4 1:35 M. Smart lost ball TURNOVER (4 TO) 119–105
Q4 1:51 J. LaRavia REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 119–105

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

POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 36.2m
33
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.0

Relentless offensive aggression paid off, as he shouldered a massive scoring load to break well past his recent averages. The sheer volume of his attacks offset some perimeter inefficiency, while active defensive hands (+5.0) solidified a positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +24.4
Creation +4.2
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -12.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jrue Holiday 35.5m
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.4

A catastrophic perimeter shooting slump cratered his overall value, as empty possessions piled up from deep. Failing to convert on standard looks stalled the offense entirely, overshadowing his usually reliable point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 34.2m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Elite hustle metrics (+8.9) were completely undone by a disastrous shot profile that featured far too many forced looks from deep. Chucking from beyond the arc disrupted the offensive flow, negating the value of his otherwise stellar defensive work rate.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Shaedon Sharpe 27.9m
23
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

Overcame a frigid night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking the paint and generating high-value defensive stops (+8.2). His ability to pivot away from a broken perimeter jumper and impact the game through athleticism and hustle drove a highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Donovan Clingan 17.5m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Struggled to establish any interior presence, seeing his offensive involvement plummet compared to recent outings. A lack of assertiveness in the paint allowed the opposition to dictate the physical terms of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jerami Grant 30.9m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Hidden negative plays likely dragged down an otherwise highly efficient shooting night. Despite picking his spots well and converting at a high clip, costly mistakes in possession management or foul trouble ultimately tipped his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Kris Murray 22.6m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

A low-impact rotational shift was marred by an inability to stretch the floor from deep. While he provided adequate defensive resistance (+4.6), his lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to clog the driving lanes for primary creators.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Flawless execution around the basket maximized his limited floor time, continuing a steady trend of hyper-efficient interior finishing. He played his role perfectly, avoiding mistakes and capitalizing on every dump-off pass or lob opportunity.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 13.8m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Made the absolute most of a short stint by playing mistake-free basketball and converting his rare offensive touches. Excellent defensive positioning and timely hustle plays (+3.6) sparked a massive positive swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 6.8m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

A brief and entirely ineffective cameo where he failed to generate any positive momentum. Unable to find the mark on his limited attempts, his presence on the floor was a net negative for the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Rui Hachimura 37.6m
28
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.9

An aggressive scoring surge fueled a highly positive overall impact, capitalizing on high-percentage looks to shatter his recent averages. His defensive engagement (+4.5) ensured that his elite shot-making translated directly to winning basketball rather than empty calories.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +24.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jake LaRavia 36.5m
11
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.6

Exceptional defensive activity and high-motor hustle plays (+5.0) kept his head above water despite a completely flat perimeter stroke. He essentially traded offensive spacing for gritty rotational defense, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 31.9m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.7

A brutal shooting night completely torpedoed his value, as clanking perimeter jumpers actively harmed the offense's rhythm. While his trademark defensive tenacity and elite hustle metrics (+6.9) were present, they simply couldn't compensate for the sheer volume of wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
S Deandre Ayton 30.6m
29
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+21.3

Complete interior dominance dictated the flow of the game, as he converted highly efficient looks around the rim to sustain a massive offensive rating. This physically imposing performance extended a streak of hyper-efficient shooting, making him an unsolvable matchup in the paint.

Shooting
FG 14/19 (73.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +25.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +11.7
Defense -3.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Dalton Knecht 23.0m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Perimeter inefficiency dragged down his overall rating despite decent interior finishing. Blanking from beyond the arc stalled offensive momentum during his shifts, neutralizing his otherwise passable hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense -6.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.4

Scorching perimeter execution defined this outing, spacing the floor perfectly and punishing defensive lapses from deep. The sheer efficiency of his shot selection drove a massive box score impact, making him a lethal weapon during his floor time.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +21.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Total offensive passivity severely limited his effectiveness, allowing defenders to completely ignore him in the half-court. Even with strong defensive rotations and solid hustle (+3.1), playing 4-on-5 offensively dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Bronny James 19.5m
5
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.2

Low offensive usage and a lack of shot creation resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint. He managed the game safely and contributed minor hustle plays, but ultimately failed to tilt the scales in either direction during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 12.9m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

A steep drop in usage from his recent tear rendered him practically invisible during his brief stint on the floor. He converted his few opportunities efficiently, but simply didn't generate enough volume or defensive disruption to leave a meaningful mark.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0