GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 37.9m
38
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+17.3

An absolute barrage of unassisted perimeter shot-making broke the opponent's defensive scheme entirely. Surprisingly engaged off-ball defense and quick reads out of double-teams ensured his massive usage translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 8/14 (57.1%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +39.5
Avg player in 37.9m -22.2
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S LeBron James 33.1m
13
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
-9.1

Uncharacteristic sloppiness with the basketball fueled a disastrous negative impact, as telegraphed passes led directly to transition points. Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than pressuring the rim further depressed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 33.1m -19.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Austin Reaves 32.7m
29
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.8

Masterful navigation of high pick-and-rolls created pristine shot quality for himself and others. His relentless point-of-attack defense and willingness to dive for loose balls drove an overwhelmingly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 32.7m -19.1
Impact +16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Marcus Smart 29.5m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Excessive foul trouble and erratic decision-making completely derailed his time on the court. Despite hitting a few shots, his over-aggressive gambling on defense consistently compromised the team's shell, leading to easy opponent layups.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 29.5m -17.2
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 27.5m
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Provided steady interior resistance and capitalized on deep post position to maintain a positive baseline. However, a tendency to bring the ball down in traffic resulted in stripped possessions, preventing a truly dominant impact score.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 27.5m -16.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Offensive rhythm was shattered by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock. This poor shot selection, combined with a failure to secure defensive rebounds in traffic, resulted in a heavily negative overall showing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 26.0m -15.1
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 18.0m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Hesitancy to let it fly from deep allowed defenders to cheat off him and muck up the spacing. His negative impact was cemented by getting caught on screens defensively, forcing teammates into disadvantageous rotation scenarios.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 18.0m -10.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jake LaRavia 14.1m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Consistently targeted in isolation, his slow lateral movement gave up straight-line drives that collapsed the defense. Making his lone shot attempt couldn't compensate for the structural damage his defensive limitations caused.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.4
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 14.1m -8.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 11.5m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite vertical spacing and rim-running punished the opponent's drop coverage during a crucial second-quarter stretch. Disciplined rim protection without fouling anchored his highly efficient, positive stint off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 11.5m -6.7
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Offensive limitations severely cramped the floor, allowing his defender to act as a free safety in the paint. A lack of his usual disruptive energy on the defensive glass left his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 9.8m -5.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
13
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Active hands and relentless perimeter pressure generated strong defensive and hustle metrics. Despite these effort plays, his overall net impact was nearly erased by poorly timed fouls and offensive disjointedness in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 38.6m -22.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 34.9m
8
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.1

Playmaking vision was completely overshadowed by crippling live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent fast breaks. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack bled points, tanking his overall value despite perfect shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 34.9m -20.4
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 34.5m
16
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.1

Absolute dominance as a drop-coverage anchor defined this massive positive performance. He consistently altered shots in the paint, racking up huge defensive and hustle value that far outweighed any offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +5.8
Defense +13.8
Raw total +36.3
Avg player in 34.5m -20.2
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 30.4%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 30.9m
31
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite shot selection from the perimeter fueled a highly efficient offensive outing. However, his overall impact was muted by defensive lapses in isolation matchups that allowed opponents to trade baskets. The scoring volume masked some underlying rotational sluggishness.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 30.9m -18.1
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S John Collins 16.2m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalized on interior mismatches during his brief time on the floor to generate high-percentage looks. His positive defensive metrics reflect a concerted effort to contest shots at the rim, anchoring the second unit's paint defense.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 16.2m -9.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
26
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

Forced isolation attempts and heavily contested jumpers dragged down his efficiency, turning his offensive volume into a net negative. A distinct lack of off-ball awareness on defense further compounded the damage, allowing back-door cuts throughout the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.7m -18.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Settled for low-value mid-range jumpers instead of attacking the rim, which stifled offensive momentum. While he showed flashes of activity in passing lanes, the inefficient shot profile ultimately dragged his net score down.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 24.7m -14.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

A complete non-factor offensively, displaying extreme passivity that allowed defenders to sag off and disrupt spacing. Even with fundamentally sound positional defense, his inability to command gravity on the perimeter hurt the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 15.3m -8.9
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Struggled to find a rhythm within the offensive flow, often clogging driving lanes during his short stint. Minor defensive miscommunications in pick-and-roll coverage kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 13.1m -7.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2