GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Jake LaRavia 35.6m
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Strong shooting efficiency and active hustle were completely undone by poor transition defense. He was frequently caught ball-watching on fast breaks, giving up uncontested corner looks. The raw offensive production masked significant rotational errors that bled points.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 35.6m -22.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 48.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luka Dončić 33.3m
27
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
+1.5

Heavy offensive usage yielded mixed results, as brilliant playmaking flashes were offset by forced, low-percentage perimeter attempts. Surprisingly high hustle metrics saved his overall impact, driven by active hands on deflections and long rebounds. Opponents targeting him in space mitigated some of the massive offensive equity he created.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.2%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +7.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 33.3m -21.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 32.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 7
S LeBron James 32.6m
31
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
+9.5

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense generated high-quality looks for the entire unit. He dictated the tempo perfectly, manipulating defensive switches to exploit mismatches in the post. Strong positional awareness on the defensive glass limited second-chance opportunities and sparked early offense.

Shooting
FG 12/20 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 32.6m -20.6
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Deandre Ayton 30.9m
17
pts
18
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack through disciplined verticality and elite rebounding positioning. By converting his touches with overwhelming efficiency, he punished smaller defenders on switches all night. His ability to anchor the drop coverage without fouling was the linchpin of a highly successful defensive stint.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 30.9m -19.6
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Marcus Smart 29.4m
16
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.2

Relentless ball pressure and elite screen navigation completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. He generated massive value through pure grit, diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs before they materialized. Exceptional shot selection ensured his offensive contributions perfectly complemented his defensive havoc.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +50.8
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +6.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 29.4m -18.7
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Indecision on the offensive end led to stalled possessions and forced late-clock attempts. While he showed decent effort on closeouts, his inability to space the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint. A lack of assertiveness against physical matchups ultimately dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 18.3m -11.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Offensive limitations severely cramped the team's spacing, allowing his defender to roam freely as a free safety. Even his typically disruptive perimeter defense couldn't compensate for the dead-end possessions he caused on the other end. He struggled to finish through contact on his rare rim attempts, compounding the offensive drag.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.6m -9.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

A disastrous rotational stint defined by blown defensive assignments and poor shot quality. Opposing guards relentlessly attacked his slow lateral movement, blowing past him to collapse the interior defense. Rushing his perimeter attempts only exacerbated the negative swing, bleeding value on both ends.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 15.2m -9.7
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 14.2m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by burying open perimeter looks when the ball swung his way. Provided steady point-of-attack resistance without over-committing or gambling in the passing lanes. A perfectly executed role-player shift that kept the second unit's momentum stable.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 14.2m -9.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Maximized a brief garbage-time appearance with decisive, confident shot-making. Kept the offensive flow intact by attacking closeouts immediately rather than holding the ball. Showed solid positional discipline on defense during his short run.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 3.8m -2.4
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
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Instantly injected scoring punch into the lineup by drilling quick-trigger perimeter looks. Exploited sagging defenders with supreme confidence during his limited run. Maintained defensive integrity by staying attached to his man off the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drew Timme 3.8m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Operated effectively out of the high post during a brief stint, converting his only look with soft touch. Set solid screens to free up the guards and rolled with purpose. A fundamentally sound, mistake-free cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 3.8m -2.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Game speed seemed a step too fast during his brief stint, resulting in a rushed offensive possession. He looked slightly out of sync with the rotational timing on the defensive end. This minor disconnect created a slight negative drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.7m -2.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Onyeka Okongwu 33.3m
7
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.4

Despite decent activity on the glass, his massive negative impact stems from defensive breakdowns in pick-and-roll coverage. He was consistently caught out of position against drop coverages, leading to easy opponent layups. Forcing ill-advised attempts from beyond the arc further compounded his struggles on a rough night.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 33.3m -21.0
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 33.0m
8
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite point-of-attack defense drove a highly positive shift, as he completely disrupted the opponent's primary ball handlers. His exceptional shot selection ensured he capitalized on his limited offensive touches without forcing the issue. Navigating screens with physicality allowed him to blow up multiple perimeter actions.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 33.0m -21.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Blistering perimeter execution anchored a massive offensive rating spike during his shifts. He consistently punished defensive rotations with quick-trigger catch-and-shoot daggers that broke the opponent's zone schemes. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -50.7
+/- -37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 33.0m -21.0
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Johnson 30.4m
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.7

A brutal shooting night from the perimeter torpedoed his overall value, as he repeatedly settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed his playmaking contributions. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, and his inability to punish them crippled the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 30.4m -19.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Vít Krejčí 21.4m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Perimeter inefficiency completely neutralized his otherwise solid hustle metrics. Clanking away from deep allowed defenders to sag off, stalling the half-court offense and dragging his overall impact into the red. His active hands in the passing lanes couldn't overcome the offensive spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -43.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 21.4m -13.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CJ McCollum 27.2m
25
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

A heavy reliance on contested mid-range pull-ups severely capped his offensive efficiency and dragged down his overall net rating. While the scoring volume was there, the lack of secondary hustle plays or defensive playmaking left his overall impact underwater. He routinely stalled ball movement by holding the rock too long against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 41.3%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 27.2m -17.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Defensive liabilities completely erased his highly efficient perimeter scoring. Opponents mercilessly targeted him in isolation sequences, easily blowing past his closeouts to collapse the defense. The complete absence of hustle stats highlights a one-dimensional performance that hurt the team overall.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.6m -16.3
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.0

Absolute dominance as a weak-side rim protector defined this shift, generating a massive defensive rating spike. Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and constant activity in the passing lanes fueled crucial transition opportunities. He fundamentally altered the opponent's shot profile at the rim without needing offensive touches to dictate the game.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +12.8
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 22.2m -14.2
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 10.1m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief stint, looking lost on offensive rotations. A lack of aggression allowed his matchup to dictate the tempo, resulting in a slight negative drag on the lineup. He failed to leverage his size in the paint, essentially floating through his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 10.1m -6.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided steady, mistake-free minutes during a brief rotational appearance. Kept the ball moving within the offensive system without forcing his own looks. A neutral presence who executed basic defensive assignments without gambling.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 3.8m -2.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0