Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAC lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
LAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 11/27 +0.3
James 9/19 -0.4
Hachimura Hard 5/11 +1.6
Smart Hard 4/10 -0.4
Vanderbilt Open 3/5 +1.0
LaRavia 2/5 +0.4
Ayton 2/5 -1.1
Hayes Open 3/4 +1.5
Vincent 1/2 +0.7

LAC LAC Shot-making Δ

Harden 6/21 -7.6
Leonard Hard 9/19 +2.5
Zubac Open 7/13 -1.3
Collins 5/7 +2.8
Sanders Hard 4/6 +5.4
Lopez Hard 4/6 +3.7
Miller 3/5 +1.0
Dunn 2/4 -0.7
Batum Hard 0/3 -3.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
LAC
40/88 Field Goals 40/84
45.5% Field Goal % 47.6%
11/33 3-Pointers 12/31
33.3% 3-Point % 38.7%
13/18 Free Throws 20/21
72.2% Free Throw % 95.2%
54.2% True Shooting % 60.1%
43 Total Rebounds 55
6 Offensive 13
28 Defensive 36
24 Assists 23
2.40 Assist/TO Ratio 1.15
10 Turnovers 18
14 Steals 8
8 Blocks 0
17 Fouls 17
52 Points in Paint 42
13 Fast Break Pts 12
17 Points off TOs 8
9 Second Chance Pts 15
28 Bench Points 35
4 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luka Dončić
32 PTS · 11 REB · 8 AST · 39.2 MIN
+27.27
2
Ivica Zubac
18 PTS · 19 REB · 0 AST · 32.1 MIN
+26.74
3
Kawhi Leonard
24 PTS · 5 REB · 4 AST · 25.9 MIN
+17.16
4
Jake LaRavia
7 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 22.4 MIN
+15.38
5
Jarred Vanderbilt
7 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 21.9 MIN
+14.58
6
LeBron James
23 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 35.9 MIN
+14.44
7
John Collins
13 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 33.4 MIN
+11.52
8
Kobe Sanders
11 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 24.4 MIN
+8.69
9
Marcus Smart
10 PTS · 0 REB · 4 AST · 29.9 MIN
+7.34
10
Rui Hachimura
12 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+6.95
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:10 J. Harden Free Throw 2 of 2 (18 PTS) 104–112
Q4 0:10 J. Harden Free Throw 1 of 2 (17 PTS) 104–111
Q4 0:10 L. Dončić take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Harden 2 FT) 104–110
Q4 0:20 J. Collins REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 104–110
Q4 0:23 MISS L. Dončić 26' step back 3PT 104–110
Q4 0:31 J. Vanderbilt STEAL (4 STL) 104–110
Q4 0:31 N. Batum bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 104–110
Q4 0:38 L. Dončić driving Layup (32 PTS) (L. James 6 AST) 104–110
Q4 0:43 J. Collins 3PT (13 PTS) (K. Leonard 4 AST) 102–110
Q4 0:58 K. Leonard REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 102–107
Q4 1:00 MISS R. Hachimura 3PT 102–107
Q4 1:16 I. Zubac reverse DUNK (18 PTS) (K. Dunn 3 AST) 102–107
Q4 1:28 L. James Free Throw 1 of 1 (23 PTS) 102–105
Q4 1:28 I. Zubac shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (James 1 FT) 101–105
Q4 1:28 L. James driving Layup (22 PTS) (M. Smart 4 AST) 101–105

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

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 37.6m
18
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.3

Brutal shot selection and heavy isolation volume cratered his offensive efficiency, resulting in a severely negative net impact. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics were completely overshadowed by the sheer number of wasted possessions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.5%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S John Collins 33.4m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Hyper-efficient finishing around the basket was entirely undone by poor rotational awareness on the defensive end. Despite sparkling offensive numbers, his inability to close out on shooters resulted in a net negative performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 32.0m
18
pts
19
reb
0
ast
Impact
+26.5

Absolute dominance in the painted area and relentless rebounding fueled a massive positive impact score. He controlled the physical terms of the matchup, generating second-chance opportunities while walling off the rim defensively.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +23.2
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 29.5m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

Strong point-of-attack defensive metrics and solid hustle couldn't compensate for a severe lack of offensive creation. His hesitance to attack the paint allowed the defense to sag, bogging down the team's spacing and dragging his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 25.9m
24
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.8

Surgical shot creation in the mid-range drove a strong positive rating despite relatively quiet hustle metrics. His ability to hit timely, contested jumpers stabilized the offense during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Opportunistic scoring bursts masked underlying struggles with defensive positioning and transition tracking. While he capitalized on his offensive touches, he gave back too much value on the other side of the floor to stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 82.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Kobe Sanders 24.4m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A highly efficient shooting display was slightly offset by minor defensive miscommunications during switch actions. He played a very balanced game, but a few costly fouls in the second half kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.0

A complete offensive blank severely handicapped his lineup, allowing defenders to aggressively double-team his teammates. Even with passable veteran defensive rotations, his inability to punish open looks resulted in a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 15.4m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Floor-spacing value and efficient interior touches were counterbalanced by a near-total lack of defensive mobility. Opponents exploited his drop coverage just enough to wipe out his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 39.2m
32
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+31.2

Sheer offensive gravity and elite playmaking volume overwhelmed his highly inefficient shooting splits from deep. His surprisingly robust defensive metrics and ability to control the game's tempo ensured a dominant overall net rating despite the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 11/27 (40.7%)
3PT 3/13 (23.1%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +7.5
Hustle +7.2
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S LeBron James 35.9m
23
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.8

Despite an aggressive scoring punch that exceeded his recent averages, hidden inefficiencies dragged his overall impact into the red. Solid defensive metrics couldn't fully offset the negative value of empty possessions and potential transition lapses.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Marcus Smart 29.9m
10
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

An uncharacteristically high scoring volume was undermined by poor perimeter shot selection that stalled offensive momentum. Even with his trademark defensive grit and hustle plays, the wasted possessions on forced threes resulted in a net negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 22.4m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Elite defensive positioning and relentless hustle metrics completely drove his massive positive impact. He didn't need a high usage rate to dominate his minutes, anchoring the second unit's perimeter containment with high-energy closeouts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +7.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 20.5m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

A sharp drop in offensive volume limited his typical ceiling, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. However, disciplined rim protection and solid positional defense kept his overall net impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Increased scoring production failed to mask significant defensive lapses that bled points on the other end of the floor. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, turning his offensive gains into a steep net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Game-wrecking energy on the defensive end and elite hustle metrics completely dictated his massive positive impact. He generated crucial extra possessions through deflections and offensive rebounding, proving that low-usage players can dominate a game's flow.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +7.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 16.6m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

A lack of defensive resistance at the rim neutralized his highly efficient, albeit low-volume, offensive touches. Without his usual scoring punch to balance the scales, his overall floor impact slipped just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 15.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A complete lack of measurable hustle plays and defensive impact rendered his minutes highly ineffective. Floating on the perimeter without generating secondary actions allowed opponents to exploit his shifts on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 9.7m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

A complete inability to generate offensive gravity or secure defensive stops made his brief stint highly detrimental. Opposing bigs easily exploited his lack of foot speed in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0