GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 35.4m
28
pts
10
reb
12
ast
Impact
+3.6

Systematically dismantling the defensive scheme, he hunted favorable switches and punished double-teams with precise kick-out passes. A dominant +16.9 box score metric was driven by elite offensive orchestration and highly efficient shot creation. This masterful control of the game's tempo ensured a positive overall impact despite minimal hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 35.4m -17.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Rui Hachimura 34.9m
21
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Searing efficiency from all three levels generated a massive +16.3 box score impact. Repeatedly exploiting closeouts and knocking down timely perimeter shots, he rode a wave of offensive confidence that far exceeded his recent baseline. This pure scoring gravity forced the defense into impossible rotational choices.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 34.9m -17.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaxson Hayes 33.7m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+20.8

Completely sealing off the paint as a weak-side roamer, he altered countless shots while converting nearly every offensive opportunity at the rim. A monstrous +20.8 total impact was anchored by game-wrecking defensive (+11.2) and hustle (+5.6) metrics. This performance was defined by relentless vertical spacing and elite rim protection.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +11.2
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 33.7m -16.7
Impact +20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 25.9m
9
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.8

Stubbornly settling for contested perimeter jumpers bailed out the defense and killed offensive momentum. A disastrous shooting performance from beyond the arc completely neutralized his otherwise stellar defensive (+3.6) and hustle (+2.7) contributions. The sheer volume of wasted possessions drove his overall impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.1%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 25.9m -12.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jake LaRavia 25.7m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Struggling to contain dribble penetration frequently forced the backline to collapse and concede open looks. While a surge in scoring efficiency boosted his box metrics, defensive lapses (-0.3) ultimately pulled his total impact into the red. The offensive gains simply couldn't outpace the points surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 25.7m -12.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.3

Navigating drop coverage with patience, he consistently found the soft spots in the midrange to keep the scoreboard ticking. Steady offensive initiation and timely shot-making fueled a solid +13.5 box score metric. A reliable, low-mistake floor game ensured his shifts were a net positive for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 28.4m -14.1
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luke Kennard 17.6m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Punishing defensive lapses with quick-trigger perimeter strikes maximized his value in a condensed role. Exceptional shooting efficiency and surprising rebounding volume (+1.9 hustle) generated a highly positive +7.2 overall rating. His constant off-ball movement warped the defensive shell every time he crossed halfcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 17.6m -8.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Completely erasing his primary assignment, he utilized his length to blow up dribble hand-offs and contest perimeter jumpers. Elite defensive metrics (+6.2) defined a highly disruptive performance that boosted his overall impact. This pure defensive energy provided a crucial spark to the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 17.1m -8.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Maxi Kleber 12.6m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Consistently targeted in pick-and-roll coverage, he struggled to recover to the roll man in space. A negative defensive rating (-0.7) dragged down his total impact despite a rare uptick in scoring efficiency. The defensive bleeding overshadowed his minor offensive contributions during a short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 12.6m -6.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A fleeting garbage-time appearance yielded a negative impact after missing a quick perimeter look. The sample size was too small to establish any meaningful game flow.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.8m -0.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Effectively capitalizing on a broken defensive sequence in garbage time generated a quick positive impact. He converted his only look at the rim during the game's final moments.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 1.8m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Moving the ball to create a scoring opportunity wasn't enough to prevent a slightly negative total impact during an end-of-bench cameo. The defensive metrics dipped marginally during the closing sequence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Forcing multiple low-quality perimeter looks in rapid succession during garbage time tanked his brief impact score. He rushed the issue offensively rather than letting the game come to him in the final minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.8m -0.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Securing a loose ball couldn't stop his rating from slipping slightly into the negative during the closing seconds. The defensive shell broke down momentarily during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.8m -0.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 33.9m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

A robust +14.1 box creation score highlights his offensive versatility, though his defensive metrics (+4.3) truly anchored his value. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and contested effectively at the rim, masking a slightly erratic outside shot. This balanced effort kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 33.9m -16.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Max Christie 30.1m
19
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Capitalizing on broken defensive rotations, he found high-quality looks to generate immense value through sheer shot-making efficiency. An aggressive offensive mindset fueled a massive +13.9 box score impact, effectively doubling his usual scoring gravity. His perimeter confidence completely shifted the momentum during his shifts on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -45.9
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 30.1m -15.0
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 29.1m
19
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Elite defensive metrics (+6.0) and relentless rim pressure drove his positive impact. His ability to consistently punish mismatches in the paint compensated for a completely dry perimeter stroke. The overall +5.2 rating reflects a gritty, two-way wing performance that stabilized the rotation.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 29.1m -14.5
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.5

He routinely beat opponents to 50/50 balls and applied relentless point-of-attack pressure, setting a physical tone for the second unit. Elite hustle (+4.3) and defensive (+4.7) metrics were the primary engines behind his positive overall rating. This high-motor approach easily offset a few missed jumpers from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.7
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 29.1m -14.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Daniel Gafford 27.9m
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

Impact cratered to a dismal -9.6 overall due to a shocking lack of offensive involvement. After dominating the paint in recent outings, he was completely neutralized by the interior defense, attempting almost zero shots all night. While his hustle metrics remained positive, the sheer absence of his usual rim pressure severely handicapped the team's half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.2%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 27.9m -13.9
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

The defense aggressively top-sided his off-ball screens, forcing him into rushed, out-of-rhythm attempts. Negative box metrics dragged his overall rating down to -9.9, heavily influenced by an inability to find clean looks on the perimeter. While he provided some value on the defensive end (+3.2), the offensive stagnation proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 23.4m -11.7
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.5

Forcing contested jumpers late in the shot clock completely stalled the offensive flow and tanked his overall impact to -11.5. A brutal combination of poor shot selection and defensive bleeding (-1.6) defined a highly detrimental stint on the floor. The inability to generate separation against physical coverage proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 20.9m -10.4
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Despite respectable defensive metrics, a sharp decline in his usual offensive volume dragged his total impact into the negative. Struggling to establish deep post position against stronger assignments resulted in a passive offensive showing. The lack of interior gravity allowed the defense to comfortably stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 20.1m -10.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tyus Jones 18.9m
3
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Operating essentially as a non-threat, he severely limited the unit's spacing and rhythm. Total impact plummeted to -7.0 as he failed to generate any meaningful offensive pressure during his minutes. A hesitant approach to attacking the paint allowed the defense to easily sag off and disrupt passing angles.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -60.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 18.9m -9.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Perfect execution in a brief rotational cameo yielded a slight positive impact. Capitalizing on his lone rim-run opportunity provided exactly the type of low-maintenance interior presence required for a short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 3.3m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Struggling to find the rhythm of the game during limited garbage-time minutes resulted in a slightly negative rating. He failed to convert his only look at the basket before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 3.3m -1.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0