Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham Hard 9/18 +3.1
Duren 8/12 +3.6
Stewart 4/11 -4.2
Ivey Hard 2/10 -3.2
Robinson Hard 1/6 -2.9
Thompson 1/6 -4.2
Harris 2/5 -1.1
Green Hard 3/4 +3.2
Holland II Open 2/3 +0.1
LeVert 1/3 -1.4

LAC LAC Shot-making Δ

Leonard Hard 17/26 +15.4
Harden Hard 7/23 -5.2
Batum Hard 4/8 +3.5
Lopez Hard 3/7 +0.3
Dunn Hard 2/4 +0.8
Jones Jr. 1/4 -2.3
Sanders 0/2 -2.0
Niederhäuser Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
LAC
34/82 Field Goals 35/75
41.5% Field Goal % 46.7%
7/29 3-Pointers 14/34
24.1% 3-Point % 41.2%
24/28 Free Throws 28/29
85.7% Free Throw % 96.6%
52.5% True Shooting % 63.8%
53 Total Rebounds 43
15 Offensive 8
30 Defensive 27
18 Assists 18
1.38 Assist/TO Ratio 1.50
13 Turnovers 10
9 Steals 12
6 Blocks 6
20 Fouls 26
48 Points in Paint 26
13 Fast Break Pts 17
14 Points off TOs 17
17 Second Chance Pts 7
37 Bench Points 5
0 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kawhi Leonard
55 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 38.6 MIN
+58.61
2
Jalen Duren
18 PTS · 14 REB · 2 AST · 31.4 MIN
+23.83
3
Cade Cunningham
27 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 32.1 MIN
+15.73
4
Nicolas Batum
12 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 31.4 MIN
+13.68
5
James Harden
28 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 40.0 MIN
+12.48
6
Jaden Ivey
11 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 28.7 MIN
+9.12
7
Brook Lopez
7 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 35.7 MIN
+7.97
8
Kris Dunn
5 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 30.4 MIN
+7.64
9
Javonte Green
7 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 13.0 MIN
+7.03
10
Ausar Thompson
6 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 23.7 MIN
+5.5
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 LAC shot clock Team TURNOVER 99–112
Q4 0:35 N. Batum REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 99–112
Q4 0:37 MISS C. Cunningham 28' pullup 3PT 99–112
Q4 0:46 J. Harden Free Throw 2 of 2 (28 PTS) 99–112
Q4 0:46 J. Harden Free Throw 1 of 2 (27 PTS) 99–111
Q4 0:46 A. Thompson personal FOUL (3 PF) (Harden 2 FT) 99–110
Q4 0:48 C. Cunningham 27' 3PT step back (27 PTS) 99–110
Q4 0:55 K. Leonard Free Throw 2 of 2 (55 PTS) 96–110
Q4 0:55 K. Leonard Free Throw 1 of 2 (54 PTS) 96–109
Q4 0:55 A. Thompson personal FOUL (2 PF) (Leonard 2 FT) 96–108
Q4 1:01 K. Leonard REBOUND (Off:1 Def:10) 96–108
Q4 1:05 MISS I. Stewart 24' 3PT 96–108
Q4 1:19 J. Duren REBOUND (Off:5 Def:9) 96–108
Q4 1:22 MISS J. Harden 17' pullup Shot 96–108
Q4 1:47 B. Lopez REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 96–108

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

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 40.0m
28
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.6

A brutal combination of forced step-back jumpers and lethargic transition defense cratered his overall impact rating. While his raw playmaking numbers inflated his box score metric, the sheer volume of wasted possessions and clanked isolations killed the team's momentum. Opponents consistently capitalized on his slow defensive closeouts to generate open perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 7/23 (30.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kawhi Leonard 38.6m
55
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+67.2

Delivered an absolute masterclass, leveraging lethal midrange shot-making and suffocating point-of-attack defense to post a staggering +46.7 net impact. He systematically dismantled double-teams by making the right read every single time, punishing any defensive rotation. His ability to completely erase the opposing team's primary scorer while carrying the offensive load was nothing short of historic.

Shooting
FG 17/26 (65.4%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 16/17 (94.1%)
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 42.4%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +47.8
Creation +5.2
Shot Making +10.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +12.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 3
TO 3
S Brook Lopez 35.7m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Anchored the paint brilliantly with textbook verticality, logging a stellar +7.8 defensive score. However, his inability to capitalize on mismatch post-ups and a few costly moving screens dragged his net impact into the red. The defensive rim protection was elite, but the offensive execution was noticeably sluggish.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nicolas Batum 31.4m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Provided excellent floor spacing with confident perimeter strokes, but his lack of foot speed was ruthlessly exposed in isolation matchups. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him on switches, bleeding points that negated his offensive contributions. The stark contrast between his spot-up value and defensive vulnerability resulted in a slightly negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 30.4m
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Harassed ball-handlers baseline-to-baseline, generating significant disruption that reflected well in his defensive metrics. Unfortunately, his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint, stalling the half-court offense. The team bled points during his shifts because they were essentially playing four-on-five on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Completely lost his rhythm on both ends of the floor, culminating in a disastrous -9.5 net rating. He was repeatedly caught ball-watching on defense, surrendering multiple uncontested backdoor cuts. Offensively, his hesitation to shoot open corner threes derailed the spacing and led to broken possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Provided solid weak-side rim protection, but his absolute refusal to look at the basket crippled the team's offensive flow. By taking zero shot attempts in over 17 minutes, he allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary ball-handlers. The defensive stability couldn't mask the severe spacing issues he caused.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 15.9m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.5

Looked entirely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, resulting in a steep -7.6 impact score. His inability to initiate the offense cleanly led to multiple late-clock grenades for his teammates. Defenders aggressively played the passing lanes against him, completely neutralizing his playmaking attempts.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Showed decent energy hedging screens, but his slight frame was easily moved off the block by stronger bigs. He struggled to secure contested defensive rebounds, leading to costly second-chance points for the opposition. While he didn't force anything offensively, the physical mismatch inside dictated his negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 32.1m
27
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.5

High-volume creation drove a strong box score metric, but careless live-ball turnovers and late defensive closeouts severely suppressed his overall impact. He consistently manipulated the pick-and-roll to generate open looks for others. Unfortunately, getting blown by at the point of attack gave back much of his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +19.4
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 31.4m
18
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+25.9

Dominated the interior with overwhelming physicality, anchoring a massive +12.1 total impact. His ability to seal deep in the paint created high-percentage looks that sustained his elite efficiency streak. Defensively, he deterred multiple drives at the rim, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +16.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 26.7m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

A disastrous shooting night completely neutralized his floor-spacing gravity, resulting in a steep -7.9 net impact. Defenders started aggressively stunting off him in the second half, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. While he showed decent effort fighting through screens, the missed perimeter looks were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 23.7m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Elite weak-side rotations and relentless activity on the glass generated a massive +5.7 defensive impact. However, his overall rating flatlined due to severe offensive limitations, specifically bricking open spot-up looks. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, bogging down Detroit's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +1.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 21.6m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Despite surprisingly stout post defense that drove a +5.8 defensive rating, his offensive passivity tanked his overall value. He repeatedly passed up semi-contested looks, breaking the team's rhythm and leaving a void in secondary creation. The stark drop-off from his recent efficient scoring streak forced others into late-clock heaves.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaden Ivey 28.7m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Reckless drives into traffic and forced isolation jumpers torpedoed his offensive efficiency. Even though his ball pressure yielded a positive defensive score, the sheer volume of empty possessions derailed the team's momentum. His inability to finish through contact at the rim was a glaring issue all night.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Anchored the paint with physical drop coverage, but his offensive clumsiness dragged his net rating into the red. He repeatedly short-armed hooks and missed bunnies around the basket after establishing good position. The defensive rim deterrence simply couldn't compensate for the wasted frontcourt touches.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Showed flashes of elite athleticism in transition, but poor spatial awareness in the half-court resulted in a negative net impact. He frequently missed defensive rotations on the weak side, yielding wide-open corner threes. While his individual shot selection was fine, his off-ball wandering disrupted the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Provided a crucial spark with timely backdoor cuts and opportunistic finishing. He maximized his limited minutes by playing strictly within his role and avoiding forced actions. His ability to navigate screens and stay attached to shooters added quiet but essential value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 12.8m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Failed to provide the necessary bench scoring punch, looking hesitant to attack his primary defender off the bounce. His tendency to over-dribble stalled the second-unit offense, leading to broken plays. A few decent stunts on the defensive end kept his hustle metrics afloat, but the overall stint was highly ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 5.7m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Completely flipped the energy of the game during a chaotic five-minute stretch with relentless offensive rebounding. His active hands in the passing lanes disrupted the opponent's set plays, generating immediate transition opportunities. Despite a couple of clunky finishes, his sheer motor drove a massively positive short-burst impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +54.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.4

A disastrous brief stint was defined by immediate defensive breakdowns and a rushed perimeter attempt. He looked completely out of sync with the game's pace, getting targeted on switches almost instantly. The coaching staff had to pull him after he surrendered a quick, momentum-shifting run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1