GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 34.5m
20
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.9

Dominant defensive rotations (+9.1) and high-level playmaking insulated his overall rating from a sluggish shooting night. Missing a dozen field goals, including several from deep, siphoned away significant offensive value. His ability to dictate the game's tempo and shut down passing lanes ultimately defined his positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 34.5m -16.3
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Austin Reaves 32.5m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Exceptional hustle (+7.5) and highly disruptive perimeter defense (+7.5) drove a stellar overall rating despite a clunky shooting night. He sacrificed his body for loose balls and consistently blew up opponent actions at the point of attack. This gritty, blue-collar effort completely masked his inefficient scoring output.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +7.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 32.5m -15.3
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 32.5m
25
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

A heavy diet of missed contested jumpers heavily suppressed what could have been an elite impact score. He salvaged a positive rating by connecting on timely triples and generating unexpected hustle plays (+6.0). The sheer volume of wasted offensive trips ultimately capped his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 32.5m -15.3
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 24.8m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Snapping a five-game streak of elite efficiency, clanking multiple interior looks severely damaged his offensive rating. While he provided adequate rim protection (+3.1), his inability to finish easy drop-offs stalled the half-court offense. The sharp drop in scoring volume left a noticeable void in the frontcourt production.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 24.8m -11.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 22.4m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-16.1

An absolute disaster offensively, bricking every single shot attempt completely torpedoed his impact score. Uncharacteristic defensive lapses (-2.0) compounded the damage, offering no redemption for the empty offensive possessions. His inability to connect from the perimeter allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.0
Raw total -5.5
Avg player in 22.4m -10.6
Impact -16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 24.1m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Flawless shot selection paired with elite hustle metrics (+7.3) created a massively positive two-way footprint. He consistently made the extra rotation on defense (+5.4), suffocating opponent drives. Maximizing every second of floor time, his high-motor play was a catalyst for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +7.3
Defense +5.4
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 24.1m -11.4
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 21.7m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Despite highly efficient shooting, an inability to generate secondary stats or defensive stops dragged his overall rating into the negative. He operated strictly as a spot-up threat, failing to pressure the rim or create for others. The lack of overall floor engagement outweighed his tidy shooting percentages.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 21.7m -10.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Forcing contested looks led to multiple missed field goals, severely punishing his offensive impact score. He offered minimal resistance on the defensive end (+0.8), failing to offset his cold shooting with physical play. This combination of wasted possessions and passive defense resulted in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 21.4m -10.1
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Relentless energy on the glass and loose balls (+5.2 hustle) kept his impact slightly positive during a brief stint. Missing the majority of his field goals limited his offensive value, but hitting a rare triple provided a timely boost. His rating was entirely buoyed by his signature high-motor dirty work.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 11.0m -5.3
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Restricted to just five minutes of action, he failed to generate the volume needed to significantly impact the game. Missing half of his attempts snapped a long streak of highly efficient interior finishing. He simply didn't have the runway to establish his usual vertical spacing threat.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 5.0m -2.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A brief three-minute cameo yielded nothing but a missed perimeter jumper, slightly dinging his overall rating. He failed to register any meaningful defensive or hustle statistics to compensate for the empty offensive trip. The negative score reflects a completely invisible stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 3.4m -1.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Floating through a short rotation without attempting a shot left his offensive impact completely barren. A lack of rebounding or rim deterrence in his limited minutes pushed his rating into the red. He simply existed on the court without actively influencing the run of play.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 3.4m -1.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Splitting a pair of field goal attempts in garbage time resulted in a nearly neutral, slightly negative impact. Missing his lone three-point look marginally depressed his offensive score. He lacked the playing time necessary to establish any real rhythm or defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.4m -1.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 36.0m
32
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.7

A staggering volume of missed contested jumpers severely capped his offensive ceiling, dragging down what could have been a dominant performance. However, his immense defensive impact (+8.8) and active hustle (+3.9) salvaged a positive rating despite the brutal shooting night. His ability to anchor the perimeter defensively when his jumper abandoned him defined this outing.

Shooting
FG 10/28 (35.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 45.7%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.8
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 36.0m -17.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Derrick White 35.3m
12
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.9

Relentless hustle (+5.0) and steady point-of-attack defense kept his overall impact above water. He surrendered significant offensive value by clanking a high volume of field goal attempts, preventing a much higher rating. His playmaking and grit ultimately outweighed the damage done by a shaky shooting stroke.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 35.3m -16.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Wasted possessions on the perimeter defined a rough outing, as missing multiple triples heavily penalized his offensive rating. A lack of defensive resistance (+0.5) meant he offered no secondary value when his shot wasn't falling. The combination of empty offensive trips and minimal hustle metrics resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 28.9m -13.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 28.8m
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

A sharp drop in efficiency and an inability to connect from deep left his overall impact firmly in the red. Missing multiple triples limited his floor-spacing gravity, neutralizing his primary value to the offense. He failed to generate enough secondary defensive stats to offset the cold shooting.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 28.8m -13.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 25.6m
10
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite finishing around the rim combined with a massive defensive footprint (+6.2) drove a highly positive impact score. His ability to anchor the paint without requiring heavy usage perfectly complemented the primary scorers. Continuing a streak of highly efficient outings, his interior presence was a stabilizing force.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.2
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 25.6m -12.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
30
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.1

A blistering perimeter barrage fueled a massive +25.6 box score impact, easily offsetting his defensive limitations. Knocking down six triples on elite efficiency maximized every offensive touch he received. This microwave scoring burst completely warped the opponent's defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +25.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.3
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 37.8m -17.9
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Operating with surgical precision inside, he converted the vast majority of his attempts to anchor a highly efficient offensive stint. Solid positional defense (+4.5) and active rebounding fundamentals ensured he was a net positive on both ends. His low-maintenance production provided exactly the frontcourt stability the lineup needed.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +33.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 21.0m -9.9
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Making the most of a brief appearance, highly efficient finishing immediately injected positive value. Active hands and energetic hustle (+2.7) amplified his short-stint impact. He perfectly executed a low-usage, high-energy role off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 14.4m -6.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his rating, failing to register a single point during his stint. A lack of meaningful defensive or hustle contributions meant his minutes were essentially empty calories. He simply floated on the perimeter without altering the geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 7.8m -3.7
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A microscopic stint yielded almost zero statistical footprint, leaving his impact score hovering around neutral. He simply didn't log enough floor time to influence the game's momentum in either direction. The rating reflects a pure placeholder appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.4m -0.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 1.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Logging less than two minutes of action prevented him from extending his streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He failed to record a single counting stat, rendering his brief appearance statistically hollow. The slight negative score stems from a lack of any measurable on-court influence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Converting his lone field goal attempt provided a tiny but perfectly efficient offensive bump. He maximized a 90-second cameo by simply taking and making what the defense conceded. It was a flawless, albeit inconsequential, micro-stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 1.4m -0.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0