Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAL lead SAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
SAS 2P — 3P —
LAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 157 attempts

SAS SAS Shot-making Δ

Vassell Hard 5/14 -1.4
Champagnie Hard 5/14 -1.9
Wembanyama 5/14 -4.2
Castle Hard 3/11 -2.4
Sochan Open 6/7 +4.5
Barnes Hard 4/6 +6.1
Johnson Open 4/4 +2.9
Waters III Hard 2/2 +4.0
Olynyk Open 2/2 +1.2

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 9/27 -3.2
Ayton Open 9/13 +3.0
Smart Hard 3/10 -3.0
Hachimura 5/9 +3.0
LaRavia Hard 3/9 -2.1
Hayes Open 3/4 +0.4
Knecht Hard 1/4 -0.9
Vanderbilt 2/3 +1.4
James Hard 1/3 -0.5
Smith Jr. Hard 1/1 +1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
SAS
LAL
36/74 Field Goals 37/83
48.6% Field Goal % 44.6%
13/33 3-Pointers 10/31
39.4% 3-Point % 32.3%
31/40 Free Throws 34/44
77.5% Free Throw % 77.3%
63.3% True Shooting % 57.6%
46 Total Rebounds 57
8 Offensive 12
29 Defensive 26
22 Assists 23
1.16 Assist/TO Ratio 1.64
19 Turnovers 12
7 Steals 8
1 Blocks 5
36 Fouls 30
38 Points in Paint 44
9 Fast Break Pts 4
20 Points off TOs 22
11 Second Chance Pts 28
38 Bench Points 21
12 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luka Dončić
35 PTS · 9 REB · 13 AST · 41.6 MIN
+30.1
2
Deandre Ayton
22 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 33.1 MIN
+27.57
3
Jeremy Sochan
16 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 22.6 MIN
+13.49
4
Harrison Barnes
14 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 27.9 MIN
+12.02
5
Marcus Smart
17 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 33.6 MIN
+10.5
6
Rui Hachimura
15 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 34.8 MIN
+10.17
7
Keldon Johnson
12 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 24.1 MIN
+10.15
8
Jaxson Hayes
9 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 14.9 MIN
+9.09
9
Devin Vassell
15 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 37.1 MIN
+7.05
10
Lindy Waters III
6 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 13.5 MIN
+5.55
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 116–118
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Champagnie Free Throw 2 of 2 116–118
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 116–118
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Champagnie Free Throw 1 of 2 116–118
Q4 0:00 J. LaRavia shooting personal FOUL (5 PF) (Champagnie 2 FT) 116–118
Q4 0:01 M. Smart inbound TURNOVER (3 TO) 116–118
Q4 0:01 K. Olynyk putback Layup (4 PTS) 116–118
Q4 0:01 K. Olynyk REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 114–118
Q4 0:02 MISS S. Castle 30' 3PT 114–118
Q4 0:06 K. Olynyk REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 114–118
Q4 0:08 MISS D. Vassell 27' 3PT 114–118
Q4 0:13 M. Smart Free Throw 2 of 2 (17 PTS) 114–118
Q4 0:13 M. Smart Free Throw 1 of 2 (16 PTS) 114–117
Q4 0:13 J. Sochan personal FOUL (6 PF) (Smart 2 FT) 114–116
Q4 0:17 K. Johnson driving Layup (12 PTS) 114–116

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 41.6m
35
pts
9
reb
13
ast
Impact
+34.6

Staggering defensive engagement and relentless loose-ball recovery completely overshadowed a rare inefficient shooting night. He manipulated the opposing defense perfectly via the pick-and-roll, drawing double teams and spraying passes to open shooters to keep the offense humming. His willingness to dig down and generate deflections in the post proved that his impact extends far beyond scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/27 (33.3%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 13/17 (76.5%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.6m
Scoring +20.7
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +8.5
Defense +11.3
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jake LaRavia 37.5m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Brick after brick from the perimeter severely handicapped the offense, allowing the opposing defense to pack the paint and ignore him entirely. His inability to punish closeouts or make quick decisions stalled multiple possessions, leading to transition runouts for the other team. Despite decent effort fighting for positioning, his offensive spacing issues were a massive detriment.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -4.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Rui Hachimura 34.8m
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.5

Bully-ball drives against smaller wing defenders allowed him to generate highly efficient offense in the half-court. He paired this physical scoring with excellent weak-side defensive rotations, frequently blowing up lob attempts and cutting off baseline drives. This two-way physicality provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the forward rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Marcus Smart 33.6m
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.7

Off-the-charts hustle metrics salvaged a night where his perimeter jumper was completely broken. He generated massive value through diving for loose balls, deflecting entry passes, and setting bruising backcourt screens that freed up the primary scorers. The sheer volume of extra possessions he created easily outweighed the damage of his clanked three-pointers.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 33.1m
22
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+24.6

Absolute dominance in the pick-and-roll dictated the flow of the game, as he consistently sealed his man deep in the paint for high-percentage finishes. His defensive anchoring was just as vital, utilizing his sheer size to alter shots at the rim and completely shut off the restricted area. He controlled the painted area on both ends, serving as the primary engine for the team's success.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +9.8
Defense -1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

Defensive miscommunications and late rotations uncharacteristically plagued his minutes on the floor. While he converted his few offensive touches efficiently, his inability to navigate off-ball screens allowed shooters to break free repeatedly. The lack of his usual disruptive energy left the second unit vulnerable on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

Rushed mechanics on his perimeter looks led to empty possessions that allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the defensive end, frequently getting blown by and forcing the frontcourt to rotate early. The combination of errant shooting and defensive liability made it a highly damaging rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 14.9m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Vertical spacing was the key to his positive rating, as his relentless rim-running forced the defense to collapse and opened up the perimeter. He finished his lob opportunities with authority while providing sturdy, mistake-free drop coverage on the other end. Playing strictly within his role maximized his efficiency and gave the bench a reliable interior presence.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

A lack of physical presence allowed opponents to easily dictate the tempo during his brief time on the court. Even though he hit his only shot, he struggled to initiate offensive sets and was frequently targeted by larger guards in the post. The inability to control the point of attack resulted in a quick negative swing for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Tentative decision-making on the perimeter bogged down the offensive flow, as he passed up marginal advantages instead of attacking the paint. He provided adequate effort chasing over screens, but ultimately failed to generate any meaningful disruption. It was a passive performance that left the team playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 37.2m
16
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.1

Relentless point-of-attack defense and elite loose-ball recovery showcased his high motor, but his offensive limitations kept him in the negatives. Opponents aggressively sagged off him in the half-court, daring him to shoot and effectively clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. His inability to punish those defensive gaps with the jumper completely stalled the offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.9
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 6
S Devin Vassell 37.1m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Shot selection was the primary culprit behind his negative overall rating, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested pull-up threes early in the shot clock. This perimeter trigger-happiness bailed out the opposing defense and disrupted the team's offensive flow. A lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption meant he had no way to salvage his value when the jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Strong perimeter closeouts and active hands kept his defensive metrics afloat, but his offensive execution cratered his overall impact. He struggled to finish through contact when chased off the three-point line, resulting in empty possessions that stalled the offense. His inability to convert inside the arc ultimately outweighed his defensive utility.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
19
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

A rare negative impact showing was fueled by uncharacteristic struggles against physical post defense, leading to a slew of forced, off-balance jumpers. Opponents effectively neutralized his rim protection by drawing him out to the perimeter, limiting his usual defensive dominance. The resulting missed shots frequently sparked fast-break opportunities going the other way.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +10.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -12.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Harrison Barnes 27.9m
14
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Elite shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive outing, as he capitalized perfectly on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners. His ability to punish late rotations kept the floor spaced beautifully for the primary creators. While his defensive presence was relatively muted, the sheer gravity of his perimeter stroke provided a massive baseline impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense -4.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Flawless execution around the basket maximized his limited touches, as he consistently found soft spots in the defense via baseline cuts. However, his overall impact hovered near neutral due to a lack of defensive resistance and minimal involvement in generating extra possessions. He was a pure finisher in this one, offering little resistance on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.2

Exceptional rim-running and timely second-chance generation completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt. He punished smaller matchups in the dunker spot, converting nearly all of his looks through sheer physical force. Even with a few missed rotations on the perimeter, his high-energy interior dominance dictated the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Instant perimeter spacing defined his brief appearance, as he immediately capitalized on defensive breakdowns to bury his catch-and-shoot looks. He maintained strict positional discipline on the other end, funneling drivers toward the rim protectors without fouling. It was a textbook low-usage, high-efficiency cameo that kept the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

High-IQ offensive connectivity from the high post allowed him to generate positive value in a brief rotational stint. He was targeted in pick-and-roll coverage defensively, regularly conceding deep drop positioning that led to open floaters. Still, his flawless shot selection and timely screens provided just enough offensive lubrication to keep his net impact green.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.4

A disastrously short stint was marred by offensive hesitation and an inability to initiate the team's sets against backcourt pressure. He failed to generate any downhill advantages, leading to stagnant possessions that ended in poor shots. The defense held up adequately, but his total lack of offensive footprint dragged down the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2