GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Jake LaRavia 38.1m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Defensive versatility and active hands in the passing lanes kept his team afloat on one end of the floor. However, a steady diet of forced, low-quality shots ultimately pushed his net contribution into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +6.8
Defense +8.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 38.1m -19.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Luka Dončić 35.7m
30
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
-8.7

Ball-dominant isolation sets bogged down the offensive pace and resulted in a barrage of low-percentage, contested step-backs. The heavy offensive load compromised his transition defense, allowing opponents to easily capitalize on his missed attempts.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 9/13 (69.2%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 35.7m -18.5
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 8
S LeBron James 31.9m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.4

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers cratered his offensive efficiency and fueled opponent transition opportunities. While his weak-side defensive rotations remained sharp, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions dragged his impact down significantly.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.3%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 31.9m -16.5
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Deandre Ayton 25.8m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A lack of physical assertiveness in the paint allowed smaller opponents to dictate the terms of engagement. Despite converting his touches, his inability to command defensive attention or secure traffic rebounds limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 25.8m -13.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 24.9m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.8

Dictated the physical tone of the perimeter defense, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs to stall the opposing offense. His elite point-of-attack pressure completely overshadowed a rough shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +6.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 24.9m -12.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Wreaked absolute havoc as an off-ball cutter and offensive rebounder. His boundless energy on the margins manufactured easy points and completely demoralized the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +11.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 27.4m -14.2
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 18.1m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.9

Exploited the dunker spot with ruthless efficiency, converting every lob and dump-off pass that came his way. His vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 18.1m -9.4
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Rushed decisions against set defenses led to a string of highly contested, out-of-rhythm jumpers. The resulting long rebounds consistently sparked fast breaks the other way, severely punishing his team.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 17.1m -8.9
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Hesitancy to pull the trigger on open looks allowed the defense to ignore him and pack the paint. His lack of offensive gravity made it nearly impossible to execute half-court sets during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 8.4m -4.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Blended into the background during a short rotational stint, offering little resistance or creation. A couple of solid defensive closeouts kept his impact from totally bottoming out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 4.2m -2.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Ignited the offense with a flawless shooting display in a microscopic window of playing time. His lethal off-ball movement punished defenders who lost track of him in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +11.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 4.2m -2.1
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to process defensive coverages quickly enough, resulting in stagnant offensive possessions. A lack of scoring threat allowed his primary defender to aggressively play the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +44.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 4.2m -2.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 32.8m
27
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+4.4

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll allowed him to carve up the primary layer of defense at will. He consistently generated high-quality looks for himself and others, though occasional defensive lapses kept his overall impact from matching his offensive brilliance.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 32.8m -16.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Duncan Robinson 27.6m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.4

Spacing value evaporated as he struggled to connect from beyond the arc, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the paint. The lack of perimeter gravity stalled the half-court offense and dragged his overall impact deeply into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 27.6m -14.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 27.5m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.9

Utterly dominated the interior through relentless rim protection and physical screen-setting. His towering defensive presence altered countless drives, while his elite finishing on rolls to the basket punished the drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +7.8
Defense +12.6
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 27.5m -14.4
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ausar Thompson 21.7m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Defensive disruption and hustle plays drove his positive impact despite limited offensive touches. His athleticism translated into key loose-ball recoveries that kept possessions alive and disrupted the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 21.7m -11.3
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 5.8m
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Maximized a brief rotational stint through flawless shot execution. He found soft spots in the midrange to generate instant offense before returning to the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Overcame a clunky shooting night by turning into an absolute terror on 50/50 balls. His relentless motor generated crucial extra possessions that salvaged his overall floor impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +9.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 31.3m -16.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.3

Completely flipped the game's momentum with a blistering perimeter shooting display off the bench. His sudden scoring explosion broke the opposing zone and forced immediate schematic adjustments.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 24.1m -12.4
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A surge in scoring volume couldn't mask the underlying positional mistakes on the defensive end. Opponents exploited his over-aggressiveness on closeouts, neutralizing the value of his improved offensive output.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +52.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 19.4m -10.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Punished defensive rotations with flawless finishing around the basket and opportunistic spot-up shooting. His ability to capitalize on every offensive touch provided a massive efficiency boost during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 109.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +64.3
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 17.5m -9.0
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 17.2m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.4

Downhill burst collapsed the defense repeatedly, leading to high-percentage conversions at the rim. He stayed disciplined within the flow of the offense rather than forcing low-quality attempts.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 17.2m -8.8
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 8.0m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Failed to establish a rhythm during a brief stint, struggling to finish through contact inside. The lack of offensive execution slightly outweighed his passable defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 8.0m -4.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Completely vanished from the offensive flow, failing to register a single field goal attempt during his shift. The passive approach allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team primary actions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 4.2m -2.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a negligible footprint during garbage time minutes. A quick trip to the free throw line accounted for his only tangible contribution.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0