GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 37.4m
17
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-19.8

A disastrous -19.8 impact score was driven by sloppy ball security and forced perimeter jumpers that frequently sparked opponent fast breaks. He repeatedly tried to thread the needle in heavy traffic, leading to live-ball turnovers that completely deflated the offense. The lack of outside shooting efficiency allowed defenders to pack the paint, stalling out half-court sets for long stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 37.4m -21.1
Impact -19.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 8
S Marcus Smart 31.2m
7
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Despite finally finding the range from deep and generating his usual chaotic hustle plays, costly decision-making dragged his net impact into the red. Over-aggressive gambles on the perimeter led to defensive breakdowns, forcing the backline into foul-prone rotation situations. The positive shooting regression simply couldn't mask the points surrendered through those structural lapses.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +6.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.2m -17.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jake LaRavia 23.3m
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Capitalizing on smart off-ball movement, he generated a robust +7.0 impact by finishing efficiently around the basket. He consistently beat his man on baseline cuts, providing a reliable release valve when the primary actions broke down. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his value, making this a breakout rotational performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 23.3m -13.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 19.9m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll roll man spot anchored a highly effective +5.7 impact rating. He refused to force bad shots, instead using his size to seal deep in the paint and extend his remarkable streak of elite finishing efficiency. Controlling the defensive glass during his shifts ensured the opposition rarely saw second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 19.9m -11.2
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Luka Dončić 15.9m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

An uncharacteristically disjointed offensive showing resulted in a steep -10.2 impact score before an early exit. He settled for heavily contested step-back threes early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and completely disrupting the team's rhythm. Without his usual downhill gravity to collapse the defense, the half-court offense looked entirely stagnant during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 43.6%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 15.9m -9.1
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Sizzling shooting efficiency masked underlying issues that ultimately sank his overall impact to -4.7. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation on the defensive end, bleeding points through slow lateral rotations and poorly timed closeouts. While he capitalized on every open look the offense generated, his inability to string together defensive stops gave all that value right back.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 34.7m -19.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 26.3m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.1

Elite weak-side rim protection and timely defensive rotations were the true engines behind his +5.1 net rating. He completely locked down the paint during his shifts, deterring drivers and forcing the opposition into late-clock perimeter heaves. Offensively, he stayed entirely within his lane, taking only high-percentage looks to snap out of a recent shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 26.3m -14.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
35
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.0

An absolute offensive masterclass propelled him to a staggering +19.0 impact score in just 25 minutes of action. He torched drop coverages with lethal pull-up shooting and manipulated defensive rotations perfectly to create wide-open looks. This white-hot scoring burst completely broke the opposing game plan and single-handedly blew the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 39.7%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 25.1m -14.1
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Offensive limitations severely capped his value, dragging his net impact down despite his customary high-energy defensive effort. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and effectively clogging the driving lanes for everyone else. His missed corner threes acted as empty possessions that stifled any chance of building a sustained scoring run.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.0m -13.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A fleeting appearance yielded a nearly neutral impact score as he barely had time to break a sweat. He managed to convert his lone offensive touch on a smart backdoor cut, showing good awareness in limited action. However, the sample size was simply too small to meaningfully alter the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 39.8m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite bringing tremendous defensive energy and hustle on the perimeter, his overall impact slipped into the red (-2.1). A stark drop-off in shot quality from his recent efficient stretch resulted in empty possessions and stalled offensive momentum. Forcing contested looks from beyond the arc completely negated his otherwise stellar point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +6.4
Defense +7.9
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 39.8m -22.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 39.2m
19
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Elite defensive instincts and passing-lane disruption were the primary drivers behind his +3.3 net rating. Even though his interior finishing dipped compared to his recent hot streak, he compensated by spacing the floor with timely perimeter makes. His ability to turn defensive stops into transition opportunities kept the opposing wings completely out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +11.4
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 39.2m -22.2
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 38.6m
35
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+21.1

Absolute dominance in the half-court set fueled a massive +21.1 total impact score. He systematically dismantled single coverage with an array of highly efficient mid-range jumpers and punishing post moves, vastly outperforming his recent shooting averages. Drawing constant double-teams also opened up the floor, making his defensive presence the icing on a masterclass performance.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +30.6
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +42.9
Avg player in 38.6m -21.8
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Tyrese Maxey 37.4m
26
pts
0
reb
13
ast
Impact
+2.8

Relentless downhill attacking generated a strong box score, but a brutal night from beyond the arc capped his overall impact at +2.8. He settled for far too many contested pull-up threes instead of leveraging his elite burst to collapse the paint. Fortunately, his playmaking gravity and solid perimeter defense kept his minutes in the green.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 37.4m -21.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dominick Barlow 25.9m
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Continuing a streak of highly efficient interior finishing, he maximized his touches within the flow of the offense to drive a solid +4.3 overall impact. His disciplined shot selection around the rim punished defensive rotations all night. That reliable finishing combined with active rim protection made him a massive net positive during his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.9
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 25.9m -14.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.7

Extreme passivity on the offensive end cratered his net impact to a dismal -12.7 despite logging heavy rotational minutes. By refusing to take open catch-and-shoot looks, he completely compromised the team's spacing and allowed defenders to sag into the paint. The resulting stalled possessions and subsequent transition opportunities for the opponent heavily outweighed his marginal defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 27.4m -15.4
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Perfect execution on a handful of offensive touches wasn't quite enough to push his overall impact into positive territory. He operated strictly as a safety valve, rarely challenging the defense or creating advantages off the bounce. A few costly defensive miscommunications in the second unit ultimately dragged his net score slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -35.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 15.7m -8.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 11.0m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A quick hook limited his floor time, with his -3.4 impact largely stemming from defensive lapses and an inability to anchor the drop coverage. He struggled to establish deep post position, rendering him an offensive non-factor during his brief stint. Opposing guards consistently exploited his positioning in the pick-and-roll, neutralizing any minor hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -76.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 11.0m -6.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Bleeding points on the defensive end during a very brief cameo resulted in a sharp -3.7 impact score. He looked lost navigating off-ball screens, giving up easy backdoor cuts that forced an early trip back to the bench. Without any hustle plays to offset the defensive breakdowns, his minutes were a clear negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.9
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 5.0m -2.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0