GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.9m
36
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+15.7

Systematically dismantling the defensive scheme with a steady diet of step-back jumpers and pinpoint skip passes carried the unit to a massive net positive. His overwhelming offensive gravity and elite shot-making proved impossible to contain.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +36.3
Avg player in 38.9m -20.6
Impact +15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S LeBron James 37.3m
26
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.6

Dictating the tempo from start to finish, masterful offensive orchestration and highly efficient shot creation drove a massive positive impact. His ability to manipulate defensive coverages in the half-court generated countless high-quality looks.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 37.3m -19.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 34.5m
26
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.0

Exploding for a spectacular scoring output far beyond his typical production completely tilted the game in his team's favor. He punished defensive lapses with confident perimeter shooting, capitalizing on every open window to drive a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 34.5m -18.3
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 33.6m
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Anchoring the paint with disciplined drop coverage sustained his positive value throughout the night. Elite interior defense and hyper-efficient finishing forced opponents into tough, contested floaters.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.1
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 33.6m -17.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 31.1m
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

While he provided tremendous hustle and defensive tenacity, those traits couldn't fully mask the damage done by his offensive limitations. Bricked jumpers and stalled possessions dragged his net impact into the red despite his characteristic grit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 31.1m -16.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Since opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, offensive spacing issues severely hampered his overall effectiveness. This clogged the driving lanes and stalled the half-court attack, negating his usual defensive energy.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 21.9m -11.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Disastrous defensive miscommunications and empty offensive possessions resulted in a highly negative stint on the floor. Forcing bad shots early in the clock allowed the opponent to leak out in transition and build momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 15.3m -8.1
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 14.4m
1
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Dropping off suddenly from his recent highly efficient stretch left him completely neutralized as a roll man. Failing to establish deep post position or impact the game defensively resulted in a negative overall stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 14.4m -7.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Struggling to find a rhythm and executing poorly on offense sank his net rating in limited action. Rushed attempts against tight closeouts prevented him from providing the bench spark his team desperately needed.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 12.9m -6.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Cam Spencer 34.0m
5
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-18.0

Whenever he looked to score, abysmal shot selection completely derailed the offense and resulted in a team-worst impact score. While his playmaking generated some positive momentum, the sheer volume of wasted possessions via forced jumpers made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense -1.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 34.0m -18.1
Impact -18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

Despite decent usage, inefficiency and an inability to generate defensive stops cratered his overall value. Settling for heavily contested mid-range looks disrupted the offensive flow, leading to a severely negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 33.7m -17.8
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jock Landale 28.6m
13
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.8

By dominating the glass and finishing highly efficiently around the rim, he fueled a stellar impact score. He consistently won the physical battles in the paint against opposing bigs, providing a reliable anchor on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 28.6m -15.2
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaylen Wells 24.5m
23
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Scoring well above his recent averages drove a strong positive impact, though defensive lapses capped his overall ceiling. His aggressive shot creation forced the defense to adjust, opening up the floor during key stretches of the second half.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.8
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 24.5m -13.1
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cedric Coward 12.6m
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.1

Capitalizing on almost every offensive touch while providing stout perimeter defense defined this elite per-minute outing. His ability to instantly shift the momentum off the bench made him a highly disruptive two-way force.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +48.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 12.6m -6.6
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Santi Aldama 30.7m
12
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.0

Even with a brutal shooting night, excellent connective passing and relentless hustle plays kept his impact positive. He found ways to influence the game without scoring, particularly by generating second-chance opportunities and rotating perfectly on defense.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 30.7m -16.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Missing open perimeter looks and lacking offensive assertiveness dragged down his overall value. Even with solid point-of-attack defense, his inability to stretch the floor or punish closeouts allowed the opposition to sag into the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 24.8m -13.2
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
GG Jackson 21.9m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Active hands and timely defensive reads offset a noticeable dip in his usual scoring efficiency. He salvaged a mediocre shooting performance by crashing the glass and contesting shots effectively on the wing.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 21.9m -11.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Javon Small 16.1m
7
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.1

Operating in a low-usage role, smart ball movement and disciplined defensive rotations kept his head above water. He managed the game effectively during his minutes, prioritizing high-percentage looks for teammates over forcing his own offense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 16.1m -8.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Executing basic rim-running duties resulted in a low-volume, low-mistake stint that neither helped nor hurt the team significantly. He filled his role adequately but failed to make a dent as a true interior deterrent.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 13.1m -7.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1