GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luke Kennard 27.7m
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.2

Lethal floor spacing and decisive ball movement drove a highly effective offensive performance. Defenders were forced to hug him on the perimeter, which opened up driving lanes for his teammates. His willingness to compete defensively and track down loose balls added unexpected value to his typical sharpshooting profile.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 27.7m -15.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Rui Hachimura 26.6m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

A brutal shooting slump from all three levels cratered his overall value despite a commendable defensive effort. He forced contested mid-range jumpers that derailed the offensive flow and led to empty possessions. Even his stout post defense couldn't salvage a night defined by offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 26.6m -15.1
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kobe Bufkin 24.3m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.3

Horrific shot selection and bricked perimeter looks severely handicapped the offense during his minutes. While he competed hard defensively and generated hustle plays, his inability to convert on the other end stalled multiple rallies. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions ultimately tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -5.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 24.3m -13.8
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jake LaRavia 18.4m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Sizzling perimeter shooting was completely undone by a porous defensive showing. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points at a rate that far exceeded his offensive contributions. The scoring punch was nice, but his inability to stay in front of his man proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -70.2
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.6
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 18.4m -10.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaxson Hayes 16.6m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Elite rim-running and hyper-efficient finishing fueled a strong positive impact. He feasted on dump-off passes and lob opportunities, punishing the defense for rotating late. His sustained streak of high-percentage execution continues to provide a reliable offensive safety valve.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -40.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 16.6m -9.6
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bronny James 25.4m
12
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

A highly efficient scoring night and relentless hustle metrics were surprisingly overshadowed by hidden defensive lapses. He knocked down open looks and kept the ball moving, but struggled to navigate off-ball screens, yielding open driving lanes. The offensive growth was evident, yet defensive miscommunications ultimately tipped his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 25.4m -14.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Drew Timme 20.5m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

A sudden offensive awakening, highlighted by unexpected perimeter touch, kept his impact slightly in the green. He utilized clever footwork in the post to manipulate defenders and create high-percentage looks. This scoring surge provided a massive boost compared to his recent string of scoreless outings.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 20.5m -11.7
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Inefficient isolation attempts and forced floaters derailed the offensive rhythm during his stint. Although his point-of-attack defense was surprisingly disruptive, his erratic shot selection routinely bailed out the opposing defense. The negative impact score directly reflects those empty, momentum-killing offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 17.1m -9.7
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Offensive limitations and spacing issues dragged down his overall value despite his typical defensive versatility. Opponents comfortably sagged off him on the perimeter, which completely clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators. His energetic closeouts couldn't compensate for the half-court stagnation he inadvertently caused.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 16.4m -9.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Cold perimeter shooting and a lack of secondary playmaking resulted in a net-negative performance. While he found some success attacking closeouts, his inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint. The scoring improvement was notable, but his overall offensive footprint remained too one-dimensional.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 16.3m -9.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Maxi Kleber 13.3m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Perfect shooting efficiency couldn't mask the underlying rotational issues that led to a negative overall impact. He struggled to anchor the defensive glass, allowing crucial second-chance opportunities that swung momentum. A quiet scoring bump wasn't enough to offset the structural damage caused by his defensive hesitations.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 13.3m -7.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Off-the-charts hustle and chaotic energy defined a highly productive short stint. He generated extra possessions by crashing the offensive glass and diving for loose balls, completely shifting the momentum. A perfect example of a role player maximizing their minutes without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 9.8m -5.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Suffocating perimeter defense and relentless energy drove a stellar positive impact without attempting a single field goal. He completely blew up opposing offensive sets by fighting through screens and pressuring the ball handler. His ability to dominate a game purely through defensive intensity was remarkable.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 7.7m -4.4
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
40
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+26.6

Absolute two-way domination fueled a monumental positive impact score. He warped the floor offensively with unguardable perimeter shooting for his size, while simultaneously anchoring the paint with terrifying rim deterrence. Opponents simply had no schematic answer for his combination of length and scoring versatility.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 49.2%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +26.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense +10.1
Raw total +41.5
Avg player in 26.1m -14.9
Impact +26.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Devin Vassell 24.2m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Exceptional shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive outing, taking only what the defense gave him. His positive overall impact was further cemented by suffocating point-of-attack defense that consistently disrupted opposing sets. A textbook example of maximizing limited touches through high-IQ basketball.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 24.2m -13.7
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Perimeter inefficiency completely tanked his overall impact despite a respectable defensive showing. Settling for heavily contested looks from beyond the arc resulted in empty possessions that stalled the offense. His inability to find a rhythm from deep ultimately outweighed his steady rotations on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 18.1m -10.3
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 17.2m
8
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.3

Relentless defensive pressure and high-motor hustle plays drove a stellar overall rating despite a quiet scoring night. He completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm, turning defensive stops into transition opportunities. This performance highlighted his ability to control the game's tempo without needing to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 17.2m -9.9
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 12.0m
2
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.2

A drastic drop in offensive aggression rendered him nearly invisible on that end of the floor. While he kept the ball moving and avoided mistakes, the sheer lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. His passive approach ultimately resulted in a slight negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 12.0m -6.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Dylan Harper 27.2m
15
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.8

Sustained offensive efficiency and elite hustle metrics propelled a highly effective outing. He consistently beat his man to loose balls and generated extra possessions through sheer effort. His surgical shot selection continues a trend of high-percentage execution that keeps the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +46.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 27.2m -15.6
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

A massive scoring eruption masked underlying inefficiencies that dragged his overall impact into the red. Despite finding his stroke from deep, defensive lapses in transition and ill-advised gambles gave points right back to the opponent. The offensive volume was a welcome surprise, but it couldn't fully compensate for structural breakdowns on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 26.9m -15.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.4

Forced drives into traffic and clanked perimeter looks severely damaged his overall value. The offense routinely bogged down during his isolation attempts, leading to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. Without his usual scoring punch, his subpar defensive rotations were glaringly exposed.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 21.1m -12.1
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Veteran savvy on both ends of the floor translated into a massive positive impact. He punished late closeouts with decisive perimeter shooting while providing rock-solid weakside help on defense. A perfectly timed scoring surge combined with disciplined rotations made him an invaluable stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +43.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 20.6m -11.8
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Pesky on-ball defense and opportunistic scoring bursts drove a solid positive rating. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns to find easy looks, providing a much-needed spark off the bench. His ability to navigate screens and pressure the ball handler set a physical tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 14.8m -8.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Kelly Olynyk 12.0m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-IQ offensive positioning and excellent hustle metrics kept his impact in the green. He consistently found the soft spots in the defense for easy finishes, though his lack of lateral quickness was occasionally exposed on switches. Ultimately, his offensive connectivity outweighed his defensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.6
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 12.0m -6.9
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Vertical spacing and disciplined drop coverage maximized his value in a short stint. He capitalized on every roll to the rim and effectively walled off the paint without fouling. This hyper-efficient two-way execution perfectly illustrates how to dominate a backup center matchup.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 9.9m -5.7
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.0

Complete offensive invisibility and an inability to anchor the paint resulted in a severely negative stint. Opponents routinely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to pack the paint and stifle driving lanes. Without his usual rim-deterrence to fall back on, his minutes were highly detrimental to the team's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 9.8m -5.7
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2