Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BKN lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
BKN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 8/18 +2.6
James Open 10/16 +1.1
LaRavia 7/9 +5.7
Reaves 3/9 -3.6
Smart 3/5 +0.7
Ayton Open 3/5 -0.2
Knecht 2/5 -1.6
Hachimura Hard 2/3 +1.9
Hayes Open 3/3 +1.8
James 2/3 +0.9

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. 7/18 -5.3
Sharpe Open 9/12 +1.2
Williams 7/11 +4.0
Dëmin 4/11 -1.9
Traore 3/9 -3.1
Wolf 3/8 -2.7
Claxton Open 5/7 +2.1
Thomas Hard 3/7 +1.0
Clowney 3/7 -2.1
Saraf 1/4 -1.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
BKN
46/85 Field Goals 45/94
54.1% Field Goal % 47.9%
7/31 3-Pointers 10/41
22.6% 3-Point % 24.4%
26/39 Free Throws 9/14
66.7% Free Throw % 64.3%
61.2% True Shooting % 54.4%
53 Total Rebounds 55
10 Offensive 16
31 Defensive 32
25 Assists 28
2.08 Assist/TO Ratio 1.40
12 Turnovers 20
14 Steals 7
0 Blocks 0
13 Fouls 21
66 Points in Paint 64
31 Fast Break Pts 18
23 Points off TOs 16
13 Second Chance Pts 27
45 Bench Points 54
39 Largest Lead 3
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Day'Ron Sharpe
19 PTS · 14 REB · 5 AST · 25.7 MIN
+34.94
2
LeBron James
25 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 29.9 MIN
+27.59
3
Jake LaRavia
18 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 21.9 MIN
+15.41
4
Ziaire Williams
17 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 24.4 MIN
+12.29
5
Jaxson Hayes
9 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 14.6 MIN
+11.81
6
Luka Dončić
24 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 28.8 MIN
+10.59
7
Nic Claxton
10 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 22.3 MIN
+9.57
8
Michael Porter Jr.
21 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 32.2 MIN
+9.23
9
Deandre Ayton
7 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 27.6 MIN
+8.36
10
Austin Reaves
15 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 20.6 MIN
+8.09
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:07 B. James STEAL (1 STL) 125–109
Q4 0:07 Z. Williams lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 125–109
Q4 0:25 D. Knecht cutting DUNK (4 PTS) (J. Vanderbilt 3 AST) 125–109
Q4 0:40 D. Wolf running Layup (7 PTS) (N. Traore 4 AST) 123–109
Q4 0:43 N. Traore REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 123–107
Q4 0:47 MISS D. Knecht 26' step back 3PT 123–107
Q4 1:05 E. Dëmin 3PT (11 PTS) (D. Wolf 3 AST) 123–107
Q4 1:14 D. Wolf REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 123–104
Q4 1:17 MISS D. Timme 25' 3PT 123–104
Q4 1:22 D. Timme REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 123–104
Q4 1:25 MISS D. Knecht 24' running 3PT 123–104
Q4 1:31 D. Timme REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 123–104
Q4 1:35 MISS Z. Williams 25' 3PT 123–104
Q4 1:50 D. Knecht driving Layup (2 PTS) (B. James 1 AST) 123–104
Q4 2:11 D. Sharpe running Layup (19 PTS) (Z. Williams 3 AST) 121–104

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

BKN Brooklyn Nets
21
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.0

An abysmal perimeter shooting performance—missing every single attempt from deep—single-handedly torpedoed his net impact down to -4.7. Despite finding success inside the arc and controlling the glass, his insistence on firing contested jumpers derailed the offense. The sheer volume of empty possessions gave the opponent constant transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +11.7
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Egor Dëmin 26.9m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.0

A disastrous offensive rating (-5.6 Box) was driven by poor shot selection and an inability to convert inside the arc. While he hit a few perimeter shots and competed hard defensively (+4.3), his overall offensive rhythm was completely disjointed. He frequently stalled possessions by holding the ball too long against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Nolan Traore 24.8m
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.2

Inefficient shot creation and an inability to finish through contact resulted in a heavily negative impact. He repeatedly drove into traffic without a bailout plan, leading to empty possessions that fueled opponent runs. A lack of defensive resistance compounded his offensive struggles on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nic Claxton 22.3m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Elite rim-running and relentless activity on the glass (+4.5 Hustle) drove a highly efficient performance. He consistently beat his man down the floor, generating easy looks in early offense. A slight dip in defensive impact was easily offset by his high-percentage finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -58.4
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 21.0m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

Poor spatial awareness and bricked perimeter shots severely hindered the team's half-court execution. He failed to stretch the floor, allowing interior defenders to pack the paint and disrupt driving lanes. While his rim protection (+2.8 Def) was adequate, it couldn't mask the offensive spacing issues he caused.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
14
reb
5
ast
Impact
+28.2

Absolute domination of the painted area resulted in a monstrous +25.3 net impact. He bullied opposing bigs for deep position, converting high-percentage looks while anchoring the defense (+6.1) with physical rim protection. His ability to control the glass and generate second-chance opportunities completely broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +17.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Exceptional two-way energy (+5.1 Hustle) and decisive perimeter shooting fueled a massive positive swing. He punished closeouts with quick triggers and aggressive straight-line drives, breaking out of a recent efficiency slump. His ability to toggle between spot-up shooting and transition finishing made him a constant threat.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Thomas 23.5m
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

A surprising lack of scoring volume severely limited his overall effectiveness, despite solid hustle metrics. He was uncharacteristically passive, allowing the defense to dictate his spots rather than forcing the issue. The inability to generate his usual isolation gravity bogged down the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 18.6m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Strong positional defense (+4.5) was entirely negated by a frigid shooting night from the perimeter. He settled for contested pick-and-pop threes instead of rolling to the rim, constantly bailing out the defense. The resulting long rebounds frequently triggered opponent fast breaks going the other way.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Saraf 16.9m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

A steep drop in offensive production left him as a distinct liability on the floor. He struggled to separate from physical defenders, resulting in forced passes and low-quality looks. Without his usual scoring punch, his lack of defensive playmaking became glaringly apparent.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.8

A completely disastrous brief stint where he looked entirely out of sync with the offensive system. He failed to register a single shot attempt, operating as a ghost on the perimeter. Negative defensive metrics suggest he was targeted immediately upon entering the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 29.9m
25
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+24.9

Dominant interior scoring and exceptional defensive rotations drove a massive +16.8 overall impact. By abandoning the perimeter to relentlessly attack the paint, he generated highly efficient offense that overwhelmed his primary matchups. His +7.7 defensive rating reflects a concerted effort to dictate the game's physical tempo on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +41.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +4.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 28.8m
24
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.9

Heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers suppressed his usual offensive dominance, resulting in a pedestrian +1.1 net impact. While his defensive engagement (+5.0) was surprisingly robust, the sheer volume of missed threes prevented him from breaking the game open. Opponents successfully forced him into isolation-heavy, low-efficiency possessions that bailed out their defense.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +15.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -11.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Deandre Ayton 27.6m
7
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

A severe lack of offensive involvement dragged his overall impact into the negative (-3.4) despite solid defensive positioning. Failing to establish deep post position limited his attempts, snapping a recent streak of high-volume efficiency. His inability to command the basketball allowed the defense to key in heavily on perimeter threats.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 21.9m
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.0

A massive scoring surge fueled a highly efficient offensive showing that drove his +6.6 net rating. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive cutting and strong finishing around the rim. Strong hustle metrics (+2.1) indicate he consistently kept possessions alive to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 17.9m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Defensive tenacity and timely hustle plays (+2.1) nearly offset a completely muted offensive role. While he broke out of a recent shooting slump on two-point attempts, poor perimeter execution capped his overall ceiling. He functioned primarily as a disruptive defensive specialist rather than a two-way catalyst.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +73.5
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Extreme passivity on offense cratered his net rating despite respectable defensive metrics. He floated on the perimeter instead of attacking mismatches, resulting in a steep drop from his usual scoring output. The lack of shot creation forced the offense into stagnant, late-clock situations whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

A frigid shooting night from beyond the arc nearly wiped out the value of his excellent perimeter defense. He struggled to find rhythm against physical on-ball pressure, forcing several contested looks late in the clock. Ultimately, his ability to navigate screens and contest shooters (+4.7 Def) kept him barely above water.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Relentless energy and off-ball movement (+4.2 hustle rating) defined a highly effective rotational stint. He thrived in the dirty work role, generating extra possessions and finishing opportunistic cuts to the basket. His defensive versatility allowed the scheme to seamlessly switch across multiple positions without sacrificing size.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 15.8m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Elite point-of-attack defense (+6.4) couldn't completely salvage a barren offensive stint. He operated as an offensive zero, failing to register a single bucket while missing all his perimeter looks. His value was strictly tied to chasing opposing guards off screens and blowing up pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 14.6m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Flawless shot selection and vertical spacing created a highly positive impact in limited minutes. He punished defensive rotations as a lob threat, maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient finishing at the rim. Active hands and paint deterrence (+2.3 Def) solidified a fantastic two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +28.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 5.7m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Brief rotational minutes yielded negligible results as he struggled to adjust to the game's pace. A couple of rushed attempts in the paint highlighted a distinct lack of offensive rhythm. He essentially served as a warm body to eat minutes without shifting the momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Decisive drives and confident finishing highlighted a highly productive garbage-time cameo. He capitalized on relaxed defensive coverages to generate efficient offense in a short, aggressive burst. Solid positional awareness (+2.3 Def) ensured he wasn't targeted on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -97.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Eagerness to shoot out of a recent slump resulted in forced perimeter attempts that disrupted offensive flow. While he found some success inside the arc, the missed threes negated his overall contribution. He struggled to stay in front of his man, posting a slightly negative defensive metric during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg -97.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

A completely invisible stint where he failed to log a single counting stat of note resulted in a negative impact. He merely occupied space on the floor without influencing the geometry of the offense or defense. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, cramping spacing for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -92.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0