GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 35.1m
20
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.9

Heavy isolation usage and poor jump-shooting efficiency consistently bogged down the primary offense. Despite making excellent weak-side defensive reads (+5.8 Def), his tendency to settle for contested perimeter looks repeatedly bailed out the defense. The attack routinely stalled when he pounded the rock against set half-court coverages.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 35.1m -16.8
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 7
S Marcus Smart 32.5m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

Gritty point-of-attack defense (+4.4 Def) perfectly balanced out a relatively quiet hustle night. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, he manufactured offense by drawing contact rather than settling for jumpers. His ability to blow up dribble handoffs consistently disrupted the opponent's primary offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 32.5m -15.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Rui Hachimura 28.4m
18
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Lethal spot-up shooting punished defensive rotations and provided a massive spacing upgrade for the starting unit. Capitalizing on a sudden hot streak, he aggressively attacked closeouts the moment defenders started respecting his jumper. Timely flashes along the baseline perfectly complemented the primary ball-handlers when plays broke down.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 28.4m -13.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 27.5m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.1

Offensive invisibility and bricked open looks absolutely destroyed his overall impact metrics. Because defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, driving lanes were severely clogged for the primary creators. Even decent defensive positioning couldn't make up for the massive spacing handicap he created on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense -6.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 27.5m -13.2
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jaxson Hayes 20.0m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite rim protection (+5.7 Def) and constant vertical spacing defined a highly impactful rotation shift. Altering multiple shots at the summit, he completely deterred opposing guards from entering the paint during the second quarter. He maintained his hyper-efficient finishing streak by strictly limiting his attempts to lobs and putbacks.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.7
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 20.0m -9.7
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 28.0m
5
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Passive offensive tendencies slightly outweighed his excellent positional rebounding and hustle (+4.5). Passing up multiple open looks from the perimeter allowed the defense to recover and pack the paint. Despite breaking a recent scoring drought, his overall reluctance to shoot frequently stalled the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 28.0m -13.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 26.1m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Defensive limitations and a lack of secondary playmaking dragged his overall impact into the red. While he knocked down his open catch-and-shoot looks, opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions on the other end. This inability to contain dribble penetration completely erased the value of his perimeter gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 26.1m -12.5
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.2

Crafty foul-drawing and relentless secondary effort (+4.8 Hustle) drove a highly productive two-way outing. Consistently collapsing the defense with probing drives, he made the right reads when the rim was walled off. High-IQ defensive rotations (+5.2 Def) routinely snuffed out easy transition opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 23.9m -11.5
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Suffocating perimeter defense (+6.4 Def) and highly uncharacteristic shooting efficiency fueled a massive bench spark. Seamlessly switching onto opposing guards, he blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions at the point of attack. Knocking down corner threes severely punished a defensive scheme designed to ignore him.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.4
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 18.5m -8.9
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 39.2m
25
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.4

Perimeter gravity fueled a massive offensive boost, as his willingness to launch from deep warped the defensive shell. Strong weak-side rotations (+7.8 Def) kept the opponent from capitalizing on long rebounds. This aggressive floor-spacing pattern perfectly mirrored his recent offensive surge.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 39.2m -18.7
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Draymond Green 33.4m
9
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.7

Offensive stagnation dragged down his overall rating despite typical defensive communication. Settling for above-the-break jumpers short-circuited offensive flow and allowed the defense to sag into the paint. He struggled to generate his usual downhill playmaking advantages, stalling the half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 33.4m -16.0
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pat Spencer 28.1m
14
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.3

Decisive dribble penetration broke down the defensive shell and sparked a highly efficient offensive stint. Capitalizing on an unexpected scoring burst, he consistently made the right reads when help defenders rotated. Solid positional awareness on the other end ensured he didn't give those generated advantages right back.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 28.1m -13.5
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Gui Santos 26.3m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Relentless energy around the margins (+5.0 Hustle) kept possessions alive and drove a solid positive impact. He consistently beat his man to loose balls and maintained his streak of efficient interior finishing. Constant off-ball cutting punished sleeping defenders and provided easy release valves for the guards.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 26.3m -12.7
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Elite point-of-attack defense (+11.8 Def) nearly salvaged a disastrous shooting night. Clanking open perimeter looks severely cramped the floor, allowing his primary matchup to roam as a free safety. His relentless screen navigation was the only thing keeping his overall impact from cratering entirely.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense -7.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +11.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.6m -11.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.3

Gritty positional rebounding and exceptional defensive instincts (+7.4 Def) drove his value on a night when his floater wasn't falling. Generating extra possessions through sheer effort (+5.2 Hustle) perfectly masked a dip in his usual scoring production. His willingness to sacrifice his body on drives swung the momentum during a crucial third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.4
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 33.5m -16.1
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Al Horford 22.6m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Blanking from the perimeter allowed opposing bigs to camp in the lane, severely compromising the team's spacing. While his drop coverage mechanics remained sound (+6.0 Def), the inability to punish late closeouts made him an offensive liability. This lack of a pick-and-pop threat completely stalled the secondary unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 22.6m -10.9
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Hyper-efficient finishing in the dunker spot maximized his limited minutes and punished defensive over-rotations. Continuing a recent trend of elite shot selection, he refused to bail out the defense with forced jumpers. Timely baseline cuts completely dismantled the opponent's zone coverage during the second half.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 18.2m -8.7
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Richard 10.4m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

A complete lack of offensive involvement and zero hustle stats rendered his brief rotation stint highly ineffective. Floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention effectively created a 4-on-5 situation on that end of the floor. He failed to leave any tangible imprint on the game, snapping his recent string of steady contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -56.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -3.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 10.4m -5.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Bleeding points in drop coverage (-1.2 Def) quickly cut his rotation minutes short. Looking a step slow navigating screens, he offered virtually no rim deterrence against downhill drivers. A rushed perimeter look highlighted a panicked approach during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 4.6m -2.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0