Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NOP lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
NOP 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 11/22 +4.1
James 10/19 +1.8
Ayton Open 9/16 +0.3
Smart Hard 5/10 +2.3
Knecht Hard 2/5 +0.9
Vanderbilt Open 3/4 +0.7
LaRavia Hard 2/4 -0.3
Smith Jr. Hard 0/3 -3.2
Hayes Open 1/2 -0.6

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Murphy III 14/26 +5.1
Williamson Open 7/13 -2.1
Fears 4/13 -5.6
Queen Open 5/10 -1.8
Jones 1/9 -7.5
Alvarado Hard 2/6 -1.5
Missi Open 3/4 +0.6
Poole Hard 0/4 -3.7
Peavy 2/3 +1.8
Matković Open 2/3 +0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
NOP
43/85 Field Goals 40/91
50.6% Field Goal % 44.0%
11/31 3-Pointers 10/40
35.5% 3-Point % 25.0%
14/21 Free Throws 13/18
66.7% Free Throw % 72.2%
58.9% True Shooting % 52.1%
54 Total Rebounds 52
9 Offensive 14
35 Defensive 30
30 Assists 28
2.00 Assist/TO Ratio 1.75
14 Turnovers 15
11 Steals 8
6 Blocks 2
21 Fouls 19
58 Points in Paint 56
24 Fast Break Pts 9
23 Points off TOs 18
8 Second Chance Pts 17
15 Bench Points 24
11 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Trey Murphy III
42 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 39.1 MIN
+33.07
2
LeBron James
30 PTS · 8 REB · 8 AST · 33.1 MIN
+31.21
3
Deandre Ayton
18 PTS · 11 REB · 3 AST · 31.9 MIN
+22.35
4
Luka Dončić
30 PTS · 2 REB · 10 AST · 37.5 MIN
+16.6
5
Yves Missi
8 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 15.7 MIN
+13.12
6
Jarred Vanderbilt
7 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 29.4 MIN
+12.3
7
Derik Queen
10 PTS · 13 REB · 8 AST · 31.7 MIN
+11.12
8
Jake LaRavia
5 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 34.8 MIN
+7.07
9
Marcus Smart
13 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 36.6 MIN
+6.63
10
Jeremiah Fears
9 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 19.9 MIN
+6.32
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:04 D. Queen REBOUND (Off:2 Def:11) 111–103
Q4 0:04 MISS T. Murphy III 26' 3PT 111–103
Q4 0:10 J. LaRavia running DUNK (5 PTS) (M. Smart 4 AST) 111–103
Q4 0:17 T. Murphy III 27' 3PT step back (42 PTS) 109–103
Q4 0:23 L. Dončić Free Throw 2 of 2 (30 PTS) 109–100
Q4 0:23 L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 2 (29 PTS) 108–100
Q4 0:23 M. Peavy personal FOUL (2 PF) (Dončić 2 FT) 107–100
Q4 0:27 TEAM defensive REBOUND 107–100
Q4 0:27 MISS T. Murphy III 25' 3PT 107–100
Q4 0:33 T. Murphy III REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 107–100
Q4 0:35 MISS L. Dončić Free Throw 2 of 2 107–100
Q4 0:35 TEAM offensive REBOUND 107–100
Q4 0:35 MISS L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 2 107–100
Q4 0:35 T. Murphy III personal FOUL (2 PF) (Dončić 2 FT) 107–100
Q4 0:37 M. Peavy personal FOUL (1 PF) 107–100

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

NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 39.1m
42
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+38.2

An absolute offensive masterclass drove a sky-high +18.6 total impact, punishing the defense with relentless perimeter volume. He consistently exploited defensive mismatches, forcing the opposition to alter their entire scheme to account for his overwhelming shooting gravity.

Shooting
FG 14/26 (53.8%)
3PT 6/17 (35.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +31.6
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +8.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Herbert Jones 34.9m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.0

A brutal offensive showing completely cratered his net impact (-13.2), despite his usual high-level defensive disruptions. Missing a slew of open perimeter looks allowed the defense to entirely ignore him, destroying the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Scoring -3.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 33.3m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.4

A lack of dominant physical imposition caused his overall impact to sink into the negative (-6.7). Opponents successfully walled off his driving lanes, likely forcing him into empty possessions or turnovers that fueled transition attacks rather than dictating the half-court tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Derik Queen 31.7m
10
pts
13
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.0

Exceptional defensive positioning (+9.7 Def) and high-level hustle plays defined his positive contribution. He operated as an elite connector in the frontcourt, securing critical extra possessions and facilitating from the high post to mask a relatively quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +13.6
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jeremiah Fears 19.9m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Poor shot selection and forced attempts dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. While he provided solid on-ball pressure defensively (+5.5 Def), the sheer volume of missed jumpers stalled multiple possessions and outweighed his energetic perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.5

Trademark peskiness and high hustle metrics (+4.8) weren't quite enough to push his overall impact into positive territory. Struggling to connect from beyond the arc allowed defenders to go under screens, bogging down the offensive flow and mitigating his defensive ball pressure.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jordan Poole 18.3m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-20.4

Impact completely bottomed out (-16.4) due to a disastrous combination of empty shooting and offensive disjointedness. He failed to bend the defense, and his empty possessions frequently triggered opponent fast breaks, making him an overwhelming liability.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Yves Missi 15.7m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Highly efficient rim-running and vertical spacing generated a massive positive impact in limited action. He capitalized on every pick-and-roll opportunity, forcing the defense to collapse and creating easy scoring avenues through decisive, mistake-free basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 14.5m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

A highly efficient, low-usage offensive shift kept his impact score hovering right around neutral. He took what the defense gave him without forcing the issue, though solid execution was slightly offset by an inability to make a definitive mark on the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
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
-8.2

Managed to keep his head above water by finishing efficiently around the basket during his short rotation. A slight negative on the defensive end was offset by his reliable interior scoring, providing exactly the kind of placeholder minutes required from a deep bench piece.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 37.5m
30
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+15.0

Tremendous playmaking gravity and elite hustle metrics (+7.0) kept his net impact firmly in the green. However, settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers capped his overall ceiling, even though his ability to collapse the defense ultimately outweighed the erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +20.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Marcus Smart 36.6m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

Costly rotational breakdowns and likely transition defensive lapses dragged his overall impact into the red (-5.0). While he provided his trademark hustle (+3.5) and disrupted the perimeter, the opposition capitalized heavily on the minutes he was orchestrating the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jake LaRavia 34.8m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Offensive passivity completely tanked his value despite logging nearly 35 minutes of solid positional defense. By failing to exert any scoring pressure, he allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes, severely damaging the lineup's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 6.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S LeBron James 33.1m
30
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+27.0

Elite shot creation and downhill aggression shattered his recent scoring slump, driving a massive +17.9 net impact. His ability to dictate the half-court tempo forced the defense into constant rotation, while a stellar +7.9 defensive rating shows he actively shut down his primary matchups on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +23.9
Creation +4.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 31.9m
18
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.1

Anchoring the paint with a dominant +11.0 defensive rating fueled a highly positive performance. He consistently altered shots at the rim and maintained his streak of high-percentage finishing, effectively breaking the opponent's defensive rhythm with relentless interior pressure.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +14.0
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.0

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and timely defensive rotations created a modest but positive overall footprint. He maximized a low-usage offensive role by finishing his few opportunities efficiently, proving his value entirely through connecting the defense and keeping possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 7.2%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +7.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 16.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

A steep drop-off in offensive involvement from recent games severely limited his effectiveness, resulting in a -5.4 total impact. While he provided some minor rim deterrence, his inability to command attention in the pick-and-roll stalled the second unit's attack.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Providing a quick spark from the perimeter kept his overall impact hovering right at neutral. He found soft spots in the zone to launch from deep, though defensive lapses (-0.6 Def) prevented him from registering a higher positive score.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.9

A disastrous short stint was defined by empty offensive possessions and an absolute zero in hustle metrics. Forcing up bad shots without contributing defensively allowed the opposition to build momentum rapidly, making him a clear liability.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1