Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 7/20 -4.1
Reaves 4/12 -4.3
Hachimura 5/11 +0.2
Knecht Hard 6/7 +8.5
LaRavia Hard 1/6 -2.9
Ayton Open 3/5 +0.3
Smart Hard 1/5 -2.0
Vanderbilt 2/4 +0.2
James Hard 0/4 -4.0
Kleber 1/2 +0.5

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Gilgeous-Alexander Hard 10/18 +4.6
Mitchell 6/13 -0.9
Joe Hard 5/11 +1.9
Dieng 5/8 +2.5
Caruso Hard 4/7 +3.1
Holmgren 4/7 +2.0
Hartenstein Open 5/6 +3.2
Williams Hard 2/6 -0.7
Wallace 2/6 -2.8
Carlson 0/4 -4.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
OKC
31/77 Field Goals 44/88
40.3% Field Goal % 50.0%
11/35 3-Pointers 12/39
31.4% 3-Point % 30.8%
19/28 Free Throws 21/23
67.9% Free Throw % 91.3%
51.5% True Shooting % 61.7%
54 Total Rebounds 50
9 Offensive 6
33 Defensive 36
19 Assists 28
0.95 Assist/TO Ratio 2.55
20 Turnovers 11
9 Steals 14
0 Blocks 4
19 Fouls 19
30 Points in Paint 48
16 Fast Break Pts 10
13 Points off TOs 26
12 Second Chance Pts 5
32 Bench Points 49
5 Largest Lead 37
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
30 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 29.4 MIN
+30.18
2
Isaiah Joe
21 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 34.6 MIN
+20.01
3
Dalton Knecht
16 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 19.2 MIN
+14.44
4
Rui Hachimura
13 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 32.9 MIN
+13.63
5
Alex Caruso
10 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 16.9 MIN
+12.91
6
Ajay Mitchell
14 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 26.4 MIN
+11.07
7
Isaiah Hartenstein
11 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 20.2 MIN
+10.44
8
Chet Holmgren
11 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 20.1 MIN
+8.76
9
Maxi Kleber
3 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 8.3 MIN
+6.89
10
Luka Dončić
19 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 32.8 MIN
+6.38
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:20 J. LaRavia Free Throw 2 of 2 (5 PTS) 92–121
Q4 0:20 J. LaRavia Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 91–121
Q4 0:20 B. Barnhizer shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (LaRavia 2 FT) 90–121
Q4 0:39 I. Joe Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 90–121
Q4 0:39 I. Joe Free Throw 1 of 2 (20 PTS) 90–120
Q4 0:39 J. Vanderbilt shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Joe 2 FT) 90–119
Q4 1:00 D. Knecht 16' pullup Jump Shot (16 PTS) (B. James 2 AST) 90–119
Q4 1:14 O. Dieng 21' step back Jump Shot (10 PTS) 88–119
Q4 1:30 J. LaRavia 3PT (3 PTS) (D. Knecht 1 AST) 88–117
Q4 1:31 D. Knecht REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 85–117
Q4 1:34 MISS B. James driving Layup 85–117
Q4 1:46 I. Joe Free Throw 3 of 3 (19 PTS) 85–117
Q4 1:46 I. Joe Free Throw 2 of 3 (18 PTS) 85–116
Q4 1:46 I. Joe Free Throw 1 of 3 (17 PTS) 85–115
Q4 1:46 M. Kleber shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Joe 3 FT) 85–114

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

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
30
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+31.4

Unstoppable penetration into the teeth of the defense collapsed the opposing scheme, yielding high-value looks at the rim and the foul line. He dictated the pace entirely, using methodical deceleration to draw fouls and neutralize rim protectors. Combined with excellent anticipation in the passing lanes, this was a masterclass in two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +40.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +23.8
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ajay Mitchell 26.4m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Relentless ball pressure and a refusal to die on screens resulted in an elite defensive rating that completely suffocated the opposing backcourt. While his perimeter stroke was flat, he compensated by generating extra possessions through sheer hustle and loose-ball recoveries. This gritty, high-motor performance was a major driver of the team's overall success.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cason Wallace 24.1m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Smothering perimeter defense and active hands in passing lanes generated significant disruption, keeping his floor relatively high. Unfortunately, his inability to knock down open corner looks allowed the defense to aggressively double the post without consequence. The stellar defensive metrics were ultimately dragged down to neutral by his lack of offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.1

Masterful screening angles freed up the guards for downhill attacks, serving as the unsung engine of the half-court offense. He converted nearly every dump-off pass with soft touch around the basket, capitalizing on the defensive attention drawn by the perimeter players. Solid positional defense ensured he wasn't giving those highly efficient points right back.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Chet Holmgren 20.1m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Elite rim protection altered countless shots in the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. He paired this defensive anchor role with decisive, efficient finishing as a roll man, punishing late switches. His presence alone dictated the geometry of the floor on both ends during his highly productive minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +34.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -5.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 34.6m
21
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.5

Constant off-ball motion terrified the defense, forcing them into miscommunications that yielded wide-open looks from deep. His willingness to take contested shots late in the clock bailed out several stagnant possessions. He also provided unexpected value by fighting over screens and contesting heavily on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Smart positioning as a weak-side helper allowed him to absorb drives and disrupt the opponent's interior rhythm. However, his offensive impact was muted by a reliance on pick-and-pop looks that failed to consistently connect. He managed to keep his head above water by executing the defensive scheme without making costly rotational errors.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Impeccable verticality at the rim deterred slashers, resulting in a stellar defensive rating during his rotation. Sadly, his inability to convert even the simplest looks around the basket made him an offensive liability. The defense could completely ignore him, allowing them to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Alex Caruso 16.9m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.1

Absolute havoc at the point of attack forced multiple rushed decisions and live-ball turnovers that fueled the transition game. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by knocking down timely trail threes, punishing the retreating defense. This was a textbook example of how elite defensive instincts can directly manufacture highly efficient offense.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +52.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Found a comfortable rhythm attacking closeouts, using his length to finish smoothly over smaller defenders in the mid-range. Despite the efficient scoring, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to sluggish transition defense and a failure to secure defensive rebounds. The points he generated were often immediately conceded on the other end through lack of awareness.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Struggled to adjust to the speed of the game during a brief stint, frequently getting caught out of position on defensive rotations. While he managed to convert his lone look at the rim, he was targeted relentlessly in the pick-and-roll. The negative overall impact stems entirely from being exploited by quicker guards on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

A completely invisible offensive shift was compounded by blown assignments on the defensive end, bleeding value rapidly in limited minutes. He failed to fight through off-ball screens, giving up wide-open looks that immediately punished the team. The steep negative rating reflects a player who was targeted defensively while offering zero resistance or counter-punch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Rui Hachimura 32.9m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.8

Strong weak-side defensive rotations kept his overall impact afloat during a highly volatile performance. He found success attacking closeouts against smaller wings, but defensive lapses in transition wiped out much of that offensive value. Ultimately, his shift was a wash as high-leverage scoring was offset by late-clock defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -50.8
+/- -35
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luka Dončić 32.8m
19
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.0

Heavy isolation usage resulted in a barrage of clanked step-back threes that completely derailed the team's offensive flow. Opposing guards successfully funneled him into the midrange, where his uncharacteristic misses led directly to run-outs. Even with active hands generating deflections on the other end, his shot-hunting proved far too costly.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -44.8
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Austin Reaves 30.4m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

Shot selection cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds ignited opponent fast breaks, punishing the transition defense. Despite showing decent effort navigating screens, his offensive inefficiency was too steep a hurdle to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Marcus Smart 27.7m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Offensive rhythm completely stalled out when he tried to initiate in the half-court, settling for heavily contested perimeter looks instead of driving. While he managed to salvage some value by drawing fouls, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint. His defensive pressure on the perimeter was a minor bright spot in an otherwise damaging shift.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 25.8m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Relentless activity on the offensive glass drove a massive hustle rating, keeping possessions alive in the second quarter. However, his overall impact sank due to an inability to establish deep post position, neutralizing his usual efficiency advantage. Opposing bigs successfully pushed his catch points out to the perimeter, rendering him a non-factor in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Jake LaRavia 22.0m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Hesitancy to pull the trigger on catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to sag and clog driving lanes for others. When he did shoot, the attempts were rushed and out of rhythm, killing crucial momentum during the third quarter. He struggled to stay in front of quicker wings, compounding his offensive struggles with defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.5

Lethal off-ball movement punished defenders who lost track of him in transition, resulting in a barrage of high-quality perimeter looks. His gravity completely warped the opposing defensive scheme, opening up driving lanes for the primary creators. This sudden eruption of elite shot-making single-handedly flipped the momentum of the bench minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Elite point-of-attack defense against the opposing primary ball-handler was entirely overshadowed by his offensive limitations. His inability to finish through contact around the rim resulted in empty possessions and wasted spacing. Teams simply ignored him in the half-court, essentially forcing the offense to play four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +5.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jaxson Hayes 13.9m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to make himself available as a lob threat in the pick-and-roll. His lack of physical presence in the paint allowed guards to finish comfortably at the rim without fear of contest. A stark departure from his recent aggressive play, this passive stint actively hurt the second unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -59.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Tenacious on-ball pressure disrupted the opponent's initiation, showcasing genuine defensive upside during a brief stint. However, his offensive possessions were derailed by rushed mechanics and an inability to create separation off the bounce. The defensive value was nearly erased by empty offensive trips that stalled the second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Flawless execution of drop coverage deterred multiple drives to the rim, anchoring the defense perfectly during his brief rotation. He capitalized on his lone perimeter opportunity, forcing the opposing big to step out and respect his range. This highly efficient, low-mistake shift provided a massive stabilizing boost to the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0