GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 33.7m
25
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.9

Settling for heavily contested isolation jumpers tanked his overall efficiency and fed into opponent transition opportunities. While his raw production looked fine on paper, the sheer volume of wasted possessions ultimately dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.6%
USG% 38.7%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 33.7m -16.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Deandre Ayton 32.7m
25
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.4

Absolute perfection around the rim resulted in a staggering +26.0 box score metric, as opposing bigs had no answer for his interior positioning. He dominated the paint on both ends, pairing flawless finishing with excellent rim protection to post the highest impact score of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/10 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 98.9%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +26.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 32.7m -15.9
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LeBron James 31.6m
24
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.5

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense drove a dominant +18.6 box score impact. He physically bullied his primary matchups to generate efficient looks, while remaining highly engaged as a weak-side defensive deterrent.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 31.6m -15.3
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Marcus Smart 25.3m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

Despite knocking down a couple of perimeter shots and playing his usual brand of physical defense (+3.4), his overall impact plummeted during disjointed rotation stretches. The negative net rating suggests his minutes coincided with major opponent runs where the offense stagnated.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 25.3m -12.3
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jake LaRavia 19.1m
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Clanking multiple wide-open looks from deep completely neutralized his value on the offensive end. Fortunately, his excellent defensive positioning (+4.2) and active closeouts prevented his overall rating from completely bottoming out.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 19.1m -9.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Forcing contested mid-range looks stalled the offensive flow and led to empty trips down the floor. His inability to secure the weak side on defense compounded his shooting woes, resulting in a distinctly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 21.3m -10.3
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Completely erased his primary defensive assignment, posting an elite +8.5 defensive rating that anchored the second unit. His willingness to do the dirty work on the glass and in the passing lanes made him highly impactful despite taking just one shot.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.1%
Net Rtg +61.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 21.1m -10.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 16.9m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opposing backcourt, generating excellent hustle metrics (+3.8). He didn't need to dominate the ball to be highly effective, serving as a perfect glue guy during his second-half stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 16.9m -8.3
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 16.3m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Struggled to finish through contact in the paint, wasting valuable touches around the basket. A lack of foot speed on defensive switches allowed opponents to target him, driving his overall impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +51.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 16.3m -8.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 13.0m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Brought excellent energy as a rim-runner, utilizing his athleticism to generate extra possessions (+3.5 hustle). Though his offensive touches were drastically reduced, his vertical spacing and defensive activity kept his minutes profitable.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 13.0m -6.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Fired away aggressively during a brief garbage-time cameo. Connecting on one perimeter look was enough to keep his micro-shift slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 75.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely broke a sweat during his end-of-bench appearance. A missed defensive rotation in the dying minutes accounted for his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Logged purely ceremonial minutes at the end of the contest. Did not record a single meaningful statistic, resulting in a slightly negative baseline rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Burned the final two minutes of the clock without factoring into the offense. Blended into the background during a low-intensity closing stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 35.2m
22
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

Aggressive downhill drives fueled a massive scoring spike compared to his recent average, keeping the defense on its heels. Elite hustle metrics (+5.0) and relentless activity on the glass ensured his impact remained highly positive despite some perimeter misses.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 35.2m -17.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 34.0m
19
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.2

Despite clanking a high volume of perimeter shots, his defensive rotations anchored the wing and kept his overall impact in the green (+9.0 Def). He compensated for the poor shooting rhythm by operating effectively as a secondary playmaker.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.0
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 34.0m -16.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.4

Active hands and constant movement generated strong hustle metrics (+4.6), keeping his head above water. However, a passive approach as a scorer limited his overall ceiling, preventing him from capitalizing on advantageous matchups.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 28.6m -13.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ochai Agbaji 24.7m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

A complete inability to generate offense cratered his overall rating, as he threw up blanks from beyond the arc. While he provided a few decent hustle plays, being a total non-threat on the perimeter allowed defenders to aggressively help off him and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 24.7m -12.1
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.7

Ruthless efficiency around the basket continues to be his calling card, extending his streak of highly accurate shooting nights. His phenomenal +10.7 overall rating was driven by mistake-free offensive execution and stout interior defense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 24.6m -12.0
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
20
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.6

Superb shot selection and confident perimeter strokes translated into a massive +16.1 box score impact. He paired this offensive explosion with timely weak-side defensive rotations to post one of the most dominant two-way shifts of the night.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 24.4m -11.9
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jamal Shead 22.4m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Forcing bad looks against set defenses resulted in a brutal shooting night that severely penalized his team. He tried to claw back value through sheer energy (+4.2 hustle), but the wasted offensive possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 22.4m -11.0
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Maximized his limited touches by only taking high-percentage looks around the rim. Solid positional awareness on defense (+2.0) ensured his brief minutes were a net positive for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -47.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 14.7m -7.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 12.2m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Faded completely into the background during his brief stint, failing to bend the defense or knock down open catch-and-shoot looks. The lack of offensive gravity combined with slight defensive liabilities dragged his net impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 12.2m -5.9
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a short rotation stint, offering zero spacing value. His inability to leave a footprint on either end of the floor resulted in a steadily bleeding net rating while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -80.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 8.3m -4.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided a quick spark from the perimeter in a very short burst of playing time. Maintained a neutral overall impact by avoiding any glaring mistakes on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.4m -3.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Logged purely mop-up duty at the end of the rotation. A single missed attempt accounted for the entirety of his slight negative rating in the limited sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Thrown in for the final closing minutes where the game's outcome was already decided. A forced perimeter miss was the only notable event during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0