Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DEN lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
DEN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 12/21 +7.8
James Open 8/15 0.0
Hachimura 4/13 -5.3
Smart Hard 4/9 +1.3
Timme Open 4/6 +1.7
Hayes Open 4/5 +1.5
LaRavia 3/5 +0.7
Ayton 2/5 -1.4
Vincent Hard 1/2 +1.0
Vanderbilt Hard 0/2 -1.9

DEN DEN Shot-making Δ

Murray Hard 10/21 +3.3
Watson Hard 7/17 +0.9
Hardaway Jr. Hard 2/12 -8.2
Jones Hard 6/9 +6.2
Gordon 6/9 +3.9
Pickett Hard 3/9 -1.3
Brown 2/6 -2.2
Nnaji Open 3/4 +0.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
DEN
42/83 Field Goals 39/87
50.6% Field Goal % 44.8%
10/25 3-Pointers 15/37
40.0% 3-Point % 40.5%
21/32 Free Throws 14/19
65.6% Free Throw % 73.7%
59.2% True Shooting % 56.1%
63 Total Rebounds 42
10 Offensive 5
41 Defensive 26
24 Assists 27
1.85 Assist/TO Ratio 5.40
12 Turnovers 5
3 Steals 6
2 Blocks 7
18 Fouls 21
54 Points in Paint 40
25 Fast Break Pts 7
8 Points off TOs 20
15 Second Chance Pts 4
32 Bench Points 20
12 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luka Dončić
38 PTS · 13 REB · 10 AST · 35.6 MIN
+35.55
2
Jamal Murray
28 PTS · 2 REB · 11 AST · 36.1 MIN
+21.67
3
Aaron Gordon
18 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 31.9 MIN
+15.38
4
Peyton Watson
18 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 37.8 MIN
+13.46
5
Spencer Jones
16 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 36.8 MIN
+12.38
6
Marcus Smart
15 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 31.2 MIN
+10.37
7
Drew Timme
9 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 10.8 MIN
+8.51
8
Jaxson Hayes
9 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 22.9 MIN
+7.98
9
Jalen Pickett
7 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 26.2 MIN
+7.77
10
Rui Hachimura
9 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 28.2 MIN
+7.76
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:12 LAL shot clock Team TURNOVER 115–107
Q4 0:36 R. Hachimura REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 115–107
Q4 0:38 MISS J. Murray 30' pullup 3PT 115–107
Q4 0:41 L. Dončić Free Throw 2 of 2 (38 PTS) 115–107
Q4 0:41 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–107
Q4 0:41 MISS L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 2 114–107
Q4 0:41 T. Hardaway Jr. take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Dončić 2 FT) 114–107
Q4 0:43 A. Gordon cutting DUNK (18 PTS) (J. Murray 11 AST) 114–107
Q4 0:45 L. Dončić Free Throw 2 of 2 (37 PTS) 114–105
Q4 0:45 L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 2 (36 PTS) 113–105
Q4 0:45 S. Jones take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Dončić 2 FT) 112–105
Q4 0:49 R. Hachimura REBOUND (Off:3 Def:2) 112–105
Q4 0:51 MISS M. Smart Free Throw 2 of 2 112–105
Q4 0:51 M. Smart Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 112–105
Q4 0:51 S. Jones take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Smart 2 FT) 111–105

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

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 37.8m
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite weak-side rim protection and timely deflections completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. He anchored a pivotal third-quarter defensive stand by erasing multiple shots at the summit. This combination of length and high-motor rotation fueled a highly positive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Spencer Jones 36.8m
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

A massive scoring breakout was nearly offset by late-game defensive miscommunications. While his perimeter shot-making kept the offense afloat, he repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts. This stark contrast between offensive execution and defensive awareness resulted in a surprisingly flat net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 36.1m
28
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
+18.6

Relentless hustle on loose balls and elite shot-creation completely broke the opponent's defensive shell. He manipulated defensive coverages masterfully during a decisive fourth-quarter run, generating high-quality looks for both himself and his teammates. This dual-threat dominance resulted in a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Scoring +19.5
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Gordon 31.9m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.9

Punished mismatches in the dunker spot with ruthless efficiency. His ability to seal off smaller defenders on the baseline created high-value scoring chances that anchored the half-court offense. However, a lack of secondary rebounding slightly muted his overall statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 26.2m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

Over-dribbling into contested mid-range pull-ups repeatedly stalled the second-unit offense. His insistence on pounding the rock late into the shot clock prevented the team from finding any offensive rhythm. These poor shot-selection habits drove a negative overall rating despite decent rebounding numbers.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Brutal shot selection early in the shot clock repeatedly killed offensive momentum. Forcing heavily contested perimeter looks fueled long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opposition. This volume-heavy, low-efficiency approach severely damaged the team's overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 33.2%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Bruce Brown 22.0m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Struggled mightily to navigate screens on the perimeter, allowing dribble penetration that compromised the entire defensive rotation. His inability to stay in front of quick guards forced the bigs to over-help, leaving the glass exposed. This point-of-attack vulnerability drove a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 18.6m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Hard screens and positional discipline in drop coverage stabilized the interior defense while the starters rested. He consistently boxed out larger opponents, preventing second-chance opportunities during a tight first-half rotation. This fundamentally sound approach yielded a modest but crucial positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 35.6m
38
pts
13
reb
10
ast
Impact
+33.2

Absolute mastery of pick-and-roll reads drove a staggering positive impact. He systematically dismantled drop coverage by stringing out big men and delivering pinpoint lob passes. This elite offensive manipulation, combined with surprisingly engaged point-of-attack defense, resulted in a dominant overall performance.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +31.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S LeBron James 34.4m
19
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite positive individual metrics, his overall impact plummeted due to a string of careless live-ball turnovers in the third quarter. Forcing passes into tight windows repeatedly ignited opponent fast breaks. The resulting transition points completely erased the value of his half-court playmaking.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -15.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Marcus Smart 31.2m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

A massive offensive resurgence was completely negated by uncharacteristic defensive lapses. Over-helping on strong-side drives left corner shooters wide open, bleeding points that erased his scoring contributions. This pattern of defensive over-commitments dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jake LaRavia 26.8m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.1

Elite hustle metrics were entirely undone by catastrophic defensive positioning. He consistently bit on pump fakes during closeouts, surrendering straight-line drives that compromised the rim protection. This undisciplined perimeter defense tanked his overall rating despite his high-energy play.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 14.8m
4
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Early foul trouble completely derailed his rhythm and forced him into a passive role. Unable to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups, he settled for heavily contested looks. His inability to stay on the floor severely limited his overall influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Offensive impact cratered due to a heavy diet of contested, late-clock jumpers. His inability to convert open catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to sag into the paint and clog driving lanes. This poor shot quality stalled out multiple half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 22.9m
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Vertical spacing and relentless rim-running created a massive gravitational pull on the defense. By consistently beating his man down the floor in transition, he forced early rotations that opened up the perimeter. This high-efficiency, low-usage role perfectly amplified the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense -2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

Total offensive invisibility crippled the team's half-court spacing. Because his defender completely abandoned him to roam the paint, the primary ball-handlers faced constant double-teams on drives. This lack of shooting gravity resulted in a deeply negative impact despite adequate defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.9%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 17.5m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Defensive liabilities overshadowed a modest offensive bounce-back. Opposing wings ruthlessly hunted him on switches during the second half, easily shooting over his contests. Bleeding points in isolation completely tanked his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.3%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 10.8m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Capitalized brilliantly on backup bigs with elite footwork on the low block. He provided a massive offensive spark during a crucial second-quarter stretch by repeatedly scoring through contact. This highly efficient interior scoring drove a significantly positive rating in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0