Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAL lead OKC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
OKC 2P — 3P —
LAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Williams 6/17 -6.0
Joe Hard 6/13 +2.4
Holmgren 5/10 +0.6
Wallace 6/9 +2.0
Caruso 7/8 +8.2
Hartenstein Open 4/8 -1.6
Williams Hard 3/6 +2.9
McCain Hard 3/6 +1.7
Dort Hard 2/5 +1.3
Wiggins Hard 0/4 -3.7

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

James 9/17 -0.2
Smart Hard 7/16 +2.2
Reaves 6/14 -1.4
Hachimura 5/8 +3.1
LaRavia Hard 3/8 -0.6
Hayes Open 5/8 -0.7
Kennard 3/5 +1.2
Ayton 3/5 +0.6
Vanderbilt 1/3 -1.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
OKC
LAL
42/87 Field Goals 42/84
48.3% Field Goal % 50.0%
14/33 3-Pointers 10/31
42.4% 3-Point % 32.3%
21/29 Free Throws 16/23
72.4% Free Throw % 69.6%
59.6% True Shooting % 58.4%
58 Total Rebounds 45
14 Offensive 9
31 Defensive 28
23 Assists 25
1.44 Assist/TO Ratio 1.67
15 Turnovers 15
12 Steals 7
4 Blocks 2
19 Fouls 21
48 Points in Paint 50
9 Fast Break Pts 12
23 Points off TOs 17
24 Second Chance Pts 14
54 Bench Points 37
14 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cason Wallace
12 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 30.8 MIN
+19.51
2
Alex Caruso
17 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 24.1 MIN
+18.73
3
Isaiah Hartenstein
10 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 21.7 MIN
+18.6
4
Isaiah Joe
19 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.4 MIN
+18.13
5
LeBron James
22 PTS · 6 REB · 10 AST · 36.0 MIN
+16.83
6
Chet Holmgren
13 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 31.2 MIN
+15.78
7
Marcus Smart
19 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 29.4 MIN
+14.97
8
Jake LaRavia
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 24.0 MIN
+11.38
9
Jalen Williams
23 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 24.4 MIN
+10.5
10
Jaxson Hayes
12 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 13.9 MIN
+9.79
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:12 J. Williams REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 119–110
Q4 0:17 MISS M. Smart 26' 3PT 119–110
Q4 0:20 J. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 119–110
Q4 0:20 J. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 118–110
Q4 0:20 L. Kennard take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 117–110
Q4 0:26 TEAM defensive REBOUND 117–110
Q4 0:28 MISS A. Reaves 25' pullup 3PT 117–110
Q4 0:35 J. Williams Free Throw 2 of 2 (21 PTS) 117–110
Q4 0:35 J. Williams Free Throw 1 of 2 (20 PTS) 116–110
Q4 0:35 A. Reaves personal FOUL (3 PF) (Williams 2 FT) 115–110
Q4 0:37 R. Hachimura personal FOUL (1 PF) 115–110
Q4 0:37 L. Dort REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 115–110
Q4 0:40 MISS L. James 3PT 115–110
Q4 0:51 J. Williams 10' driving floating Jump Shot (19 PTS) 115–110
Q4 1:03 R. Hachimura cutting Layup (12 PTS) (L. James 10 AST) 113–110

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

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 36.0m
22
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+10.1

Heavy offensive usage and poor perimeter shot selection suppressed what looked like a dominant statistical night. While his playmaking engine hummed, empty trips from beyond the arc and likely live-ball mistakes kept his actual net influence hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 32.9m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Despite scoring efficiently and showing flashes of capable defense, his overall impact slipped into the red. A lack of off-ball connectivity and potential rotational breakdowns allowed opponents to outpace his individual offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 29.4m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.6

A massive, unexpected surge in perimeter shot-making paired beautifully with his trademark point-of-attack disruption. While his interior finishing was spotty, his aggressive two-way intensity set a physical tone that drove a solidly positive net outcome.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 29.0m
6
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Extreme offensive passivity severely capped his ceiling, as he failed to leverage his size for meaningful scoring volume. Even with strong interior defensive metrics, his reluctance to demand the ball allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +9.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 24.0m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

High-motor hustle plays and active defensive rotations completely overshadowed a subpar shooting night. He found ways to impact winning without the ball, generating extra possessions that more than made up for his clunky perimeter execution.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.0

Off-the-charts hustle metrics couldn't save his rating from a poor shot-selection profile. Forcing contested looks from deep stalled offensive momentum, negating the sheer effort he poured into diving for loose balls and fighting through screens.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Luke Kennard 24.2m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

A failure to launch from the perimeter rendered his offensive gravity mostly theoretical. Without high-volume spacing to stretch the defense, his physical limitations on the other end of the floor became glaring liabilities that dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.7

Complete offensive invisibility created a severe spacing bottleneck that tanked his overall rating. Even though he brought his usual chaotic energy and defensive versatility, playing 4-on-5 on the offensive end proved too costly for the team to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 13.9m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Relentless rim-running and vertical spacing punished the opposing interior defense in a highly productive short shift. He maintained his streak of elite finishing efficiency, generating enough offensive momentum to easily outpace his minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

A brief cameo appearance yielded negative results due to a complete lack of statistical production. He operated strictly as a cardio participant, failing to register a single meaningful action during his short time on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -71.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Chet Holmgren 31.2m
13
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

Elite defensive positioning drove a highly positive impact score, anchoring the paint effectively throughout his minutes. He supplemented his rim protection with high-level hustle plays and smart shot selection, maximizing his value without needing a massive usage rate.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +11.7
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cason Wallace 30.8m
12
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.1

Surgical shot selection inside the arc and suffocating point-of-attack defense defined a stellar two-way performance. He completely neutralized his matchups while making quick, decisive reads on offense, driving a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 28.9m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Despite bringing his trademark physicality and positive defensive metrics, hidden costs completely cratered his overall rating. Offensive passivity and likely off-ball mistakes or foul trouble dragged his net impact into the deep negative, erasing the value of his perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Williams 24.4m
23
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Scoring volume masked severe inefficiency from the floor, as clanking 11 shots severely limited his overall value. His aggressive offensive approach forced the issue, but solid perimeter defense and hustle plays prevented his impact from falling into the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 41.0%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +14.2
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.4

Total dominance on the defensive end fueled a massive overall impact rating. He operated as an elite connective hub, combining stifling interior defense with smart offensive decision-making to completely control the flow of the game during his shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +11.4
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Isaiah Joe 27.4m
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Lethal floor spacing stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point, fueling a massive offensive surge. Surprisingly stout defensive rotations further amplified his value, proving he was much more than just a spot-up threat in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +13.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Alex Caruso 24.1m
17
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

Absolute offensive perfection from the perimeter drove a massive spike in his overall value. He paired this unexpected scoring explosion with his usual disruptive defensive instincts, resulting in a dominant two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Elite hustle metrics and floor-stretching ability couldn't salvage a negative overall impact. Hidden offensive mistakes and a lack of true rim deterrence allowed opponents to capitalize when he was on the floor, neutralizing his high-energy plays.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.7

An uncharacteristic shooting slump completely derailed his impact, snapping a long streak of efficient offensive outings. Clanking every attempt stalled the offensive flow, and his standard defensive reliability wasn't nearly enough to offset the empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring -2.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 13.6m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

Efficient shot-making in limited minutes was undone by a lack of defensive resistance and low physical engagement. Opponents easily exploited his matchups on the other end, turning his brief offensive flashes into a net negative for the team.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -3.1
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
-9.9

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a slightly negative impact due to offensive invisibility. While he provided a minor defensive spark, he simply wasn't on the floor long enough to establish any real rhythm or positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0