GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Jake LaRavia 37.1m
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns with lethal spot-up shooting to triple his usual scoring output. Beyond the perimeter marksmanship, his relentless motor generated a +6.2 hustle rating through timely cuts and contested loose balls. He provided the exact type of high-energy, two-way spark the second unit desperately needed.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 37.1m -22.1
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luka Dončić 35.6m
39
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.0

Systematically dismantled the opposing defense with a steady diet of step-back threes and perfectly timed drives. His elite shot-making efficiency on staggering volume carried the entire offensive structure, yielding a massive +27.2 box score metric. He identified the weak link in the pick-and-roll coverage early and mercilessly exploited it all night.

Shooting
FG 15/26 (57.7%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +27.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 35.6m -21.2
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S LeBron James 32.7m
29
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.7

Masterful manipulation of defensive mismatches fueled a massive scoring surge that broke his recent quiet stretch. He paired this offensive dominance with an incredibly disruptive +9.0 defensive rating, consistently blowing up pick-and-roll actions as a weak-side helper. This was a vintage, two-way clinic that dictated the outcome of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.7%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +21.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.0
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 32.7m -19.5
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Marcus Smart 32.2m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Wreaked absolute havoc on the perimeter with a +5.8 defensive rating, blowing up dribble hand-offs and diving for loose balls. However, his erratic shot selection and clanked jumpers allowed the defense to ignore him in the half-court. The offensive spacing issues ultimately negated his elite hustle, dragging his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 32.2m -19.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 31.8m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Anchored the paint with disciplined verticality, resulting in a robust +6.7 defensive impact that deterred multiple rim attempts. He continued his streak of highly efficient interior finishing, feasting on drop-off passes and putbacks. While his offensive volume was modest, his structural importance to the half-court defense was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 31.8m -18.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 86.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Struggled to find any offensive rhythm, settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. His inability to punish mismatches stalled out the offense during his shifts, leading to a brutal -9.4 overall impact. He essentially floated on the perimeter without applying any real pressure to the defense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -43.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 17.6m -10.4
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Kobe Bufkin 16.9m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Provided exceptional point-of-attack resistance, fighting through screens to earn a stellar +4.5 defensive rating. Sadly, his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to roam freely and double-team the primary ball-handlers. The resulting 4-on-5 half-court offense severely punished the team's overall efficiency during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 16.9m -10.1
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 15.3m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.0

Shot the team completely out of possessions with a disastrous perimeter performance. His insistence on firing away despite a broken rhythm created long rebounds and transition opportunities for the opponent. Compounding the offensive nightmare, he was consistently targeted and blown by on the defensive end, resulting in a catastrophic -16.0 total impact.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -48.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.0
Raw total -6.8
Avg player in 15.3m -9.2
Impact -16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Maximized his limited minutes by playing strictly within himself, finishing efficiently around the rim on timely cuts. His defensive versatility shined as he seamlessly switched across multiple positions, disrupting passing lanes without fouling. It was a textbook example of a low-usage role player providing high-leverage two-way value.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 14.7m -8.7
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Blew a defensive assignment during a very brief stint at the tail end of the game. He wasn't on the floor long enough to establish any sort of rhythm or positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Rushed a perimeter jumper during a fleeting garbage-time appearance. He failed to register any positive contributions in a stint primarily used to run out the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 1.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Logged a quick ninety seconds of cardio before the final horn sounded. He essentially acted as a human victory cigar, making no statistical impact whatsoever.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Burned a possession with a missed shot during mop-up duty at the end of the game. His brief time on the floor was purely ceremonial with the outcome already decided.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 39.5m
26
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.3

Relentless energy on the glass and in passing lanes drove an elite +7.4 hustle rating. Even with a slight dip in his recent shooting efficiency, his length disrupted the opponent's primary actions all night. He found ways to impact winning through sheer activity level rather than pure shot-making.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +7.3
Defense +5.4
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 39.5m -23.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 33.1m
25
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.0

Punished late closeouts with blistering perimeter efficiency to shatter his recent scoring averages. The combination of hyper-efficient shot-making and relentless rim-runs yielded a massive +13.0 total impact. He completely dictated the physical tempo of the game on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +25.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 33.1m -19.7
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 32.5m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite shot selection fueled a highly efficient scoring night that kept the offense humming. His constant off-ball movement created high-percentage looks, translating into a stellar +20.0 box score impact. Active hands on the perimeter also generated secondary hustle points to round out a pristine two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 32.5m -19.4
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 52.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moussa Diabaté 30.1m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Despite finishing efficiently around the basket, his overall influence cratered due to hidden mistakes and likely foul trouble. He struggled to anchor the interior during crucial stretches, allowing opponents to exploit the paint when he was out of position. The stark contrast between his positive individual metrics and a -7.6 total impact points directly to costly defensive breakdowns in the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 30.1m -18.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 28.6m
30
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+10.4

A barrage of transition three-pointers completely broke the opponent's defensive shell and spiked his overall impact. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, he leveraged deep drop coverage to generate a massive +24.8 box score rating. His audacious shot selection finally paid off, dictating the entire offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 9/17 (52.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 28.6m -17.0
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Sion James 16.8m
9
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Forcing the issue offensively led to a barrage of clanked jumpers that stalled out secondary units. While he doubled his usual scoring output, the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged his overall impact into the red. Poor closeouts on the perimeter further compounded the damage during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +41.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 16.8m -9.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Operating strictly within his role as a rim-runner yielded a highly efficient interior performance. His vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter while he quietly accumulated positive defensive value as a drop-coverage anchor. A disciplined approach to shot selection kept his impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 15.2m -9.0
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Sidelined by a lack of rhythm, his inability to generate downhill pressure resulted in a stark drop-off from his usual offensive production. The offense stagnated during his brief shifts, leading to a negative overall impact despite decent defensive metrics. He failed to collapse the defense, settling for contested perimeter looks instead.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 14.0m -8.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 13.7m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined his stint, generating a stellar +4.2 defensive rating as he navigated screens flawlessly. Unfortunately, his complete refusal to look at the rim allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the paint. That offensive disappearing act ultimately resulted in a net-negative performance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +61.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 13.7m -8.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor, dragging down his overall rating. He managed to salvage some value through physical post defense and loose ball recoveries, but it wasn't enough to overcome his lack of gravity. The spacing suffered noticeably whenever he occupied the weak-side corner.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 13.4m -8.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Inserted solely to eat up garbage-time seconds before the final buzzer. He functioned strictly as a placeholder, making zero tangible impact on either side of the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely broke a sweat during a fleeting cameo appearance at the end of the rotation. He logged just enough time to execute a few defensive rotations without registering any meaningful statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.5m -0.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0