GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 36.1m
24
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.9

A brutal volume of missed two-point attempts cratered his overall efficiency and dragged his impact into the negative. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks in traffic rather than keeping the ball moving. Those empty possessions fueled opponent transition opportunities and offset his otherwise solid playmaking metrics.

Shooting
FG 8/25 (32.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 36.1m -17.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jake LaRavia 34.4m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+9.0) were the primary engine behind his stellar impact rating. He consistently won loose balls and kept possessions alive with relentless energy on the glass. Pairing that gritty effort with disciplined perimeter execution made him an invaluable glue guy in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +9.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 34.4m -16.6
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S LeBron James 32.9m
26
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.6

Masterful offensive orchestration and elite defensive anticipation (+9.3 Def) fueled a massive positive impact. He consistently manipulated defensive rotations to create high-value looks at the rim, completely dictating the tempo in the half-court. This dual-threat dominance overwhelmed the opposition on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +9.3
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 32.9m -15.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Marcus Smart 30.2m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Exceptional point-of-attack defense and high-motor hustle plays (+5.8) were nearly erased by erratic shot selection. He bailed out the opposing defense by jacking up contested perimeter shots early in the clock. That offensive inefficiency dragged an otherwise gritty defensive performance slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 30.2m -14.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 23.6m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

A stark lack of physical force in the paint severely damaged his overall impact score. He repeatedly settled for soft, contested looks rather than establishing deep post position, breaking a long streak of efficient finishing. This passive approach allowed the defense to off-help without consequence.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 23.6m -11.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless activity in the dunker spot and timely cuts to the rim drove a highly positive impact score. He weaponized his length to disrupt passing lanes and generate crucial extra possessions through sheer hustle (+4.0). This high-energy execution perfectly complemented the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 26.5m -12.9
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 24.4m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Disastrous pick-and-roll coverage (-2.5 Def) completely tanked his value on the floor. He repeatedly dropped too deep or missed rotations, surrendering a parade of uncontested layups and open floaters. This inability to anchor the backline heavily outweighed his modest offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 24.4m -11.8
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 15.3m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

A failure to generate meaningful defensive pressure or hustle plays left his impact score in the negative. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, forcing the defense into unwanted rotations. Without high-level playmaking to compensate, his minutes were a net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 15.3m -7.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Hesitancy to let it fly from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. He failed to register any meaningful hustle or defensive metrics during his stint. This lack of peripheral involvement resulted in a quietly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 13.4m -6.5
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely broke a sweat during a brief three-minute cameo that yielded a negligible impact score. He lacked the floor time to establish any rhythm or influence the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 3.3m -1.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
22
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite defensive engagement (+10.1 Def) and high-motor plays completely defined this performance. He consistently blew up passing lanes and generated extra possessions, pairing that defensive intensity with a highly disciplined offensive approach. This sustained two-way effort translated into a stellar positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +10.1
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 39.5m -19.2
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
S AJ Green 35.2m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite providing excellent perimeter spacing and solid defensive resistance (+6.4 Def), his overall impact dipped into the red. A pattern of floating on the periphery limited his ability to influence the game beyond spot-up opportunities. He simply didn't generate enough offensive gravity to justify the heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 35.2m -17.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 31.0m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.6

A disastrous pattern of forced perimeter jumpers completely tanked his impact score (-13.6). He repeatedly derailed offensive possessions by settling for contested looks early in the shot clock, bleeding value with a barrage of missed shots. This severe drop in shot quality crippled the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 32.0%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 31.0m -15.0
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.5

Total dominance in the painted area drove a massive +13.5 impact score. By completely abandoning the three-point shot, he optimized his shot profile and punished mismatches at the rim with ruthless efficiency. His relentless rim pressure dictated the terms of engagement for the entire offense.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.4
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 30.8m -14.9
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Myles Turner 22.9m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A surprisingly muted defensive presence (+0.5 Def) severely undercut his overall value on the floor. While he hit a couple of trailing perimeter shots, his inability to anchor the paint or generate meaningful rim deterrence allowed opponents to score comfortably inside. This lack of interior resistance resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 22.9m -11.1
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Bobby Portis 30.0m
11
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Strong rebounding and solid defensive positioning (+7.4 Def) were offset by a string of ill-advised perimeter attempts. His insistence on popping for contested deep shots rather than rolling to the rim killed multiple offensive possessions. Ultimately, that poor shot selection dragged an otherwise physical performance slightly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.4
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 30.0m -14.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kyle Kuzma 23.0m
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Methodical shot creation and a refusal to settle for bad looks kept his impact firmly in the green. He consistently attacked closeouts to get to his spots in the mid-range, providing a stabilizing offensive presence. This disciplined approach maximized his value during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 23.0m -11.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Defensive lapses and a failure to stay attached to shooters resulted in a notable negative impact score. He provided virtually no resistance on the perimeter, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. Without enough offensive volume to compensate, his minutes were a net drain.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 19.2m -9.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Maximized a brief stint on the floor by providing immediate point-of-attack defensive pressure (+2.7 Def). He made zero mistakes within the offensive flow, taking only what the defense conceded without forcing the issue. This flawless execution in a specialized role drove a surprisingly high positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 8.4m -4.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0