GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 37.9m
22
pts
9
reb
15
ast
Impact
-0.6

A disastrous shooting night characterized by forced, step-back jumpers completely tanked his offensive efficiency. Although he manipulated the defense well to create looks for others, his own wasted possessions stalled out critical runs. The sheer volume of empty trips offset his otherwise solid defensive and hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 8/24 (33.3%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 37.9m -18.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Austin Reaves 34.8m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Incredible defensive effort (+5.9) was nearly entirely offset by a brutal volume of missed shots. He forced the issue offensively, settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups that bailed out the defense. His relentless ball pressure kept him slightly in the green, but poor shot selection capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 34.8m -17.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 32.3m
21
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.9

Absolute dominance on the interior glass and disciplined rim protection fueled a massive +10.9 net impact. He consistently sealed his man early in the shot clock, converting high-percentage looks while anchoring the paint defensively. His ability to neutralize the opponent's primary frontcourt threat defined a highly efficient, two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 32.3m -16.0
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S LeBron James 32.0m
21
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Costly defensive lapses in transition and a tendency to hold the ball too long dragged his net impact into the red. Despite generating efficient offense, his slow recoveries allowed the opposition to capitalize on numbers advantages. A pattern of late closeouts on the perimeter ultimately undercut his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 32.0m -15.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Marcus Smart 23.4m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Severe offensive passivity completely derailed his value, as he failed to bend the defense or create advantages. While his trademark hustle was present, his reluctance to initiate actions allowed the opposing defense to aggressively trap the primary ball-handlers. This lack of offensive gravity resulted in a stagnant half-court attack during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 23.4m -11.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Excellent positional defense (+6.7) and timely weakside help anchored a highly effective rotation stint. He capitalized on broken plays, finding soft spots in the defense to convert highly efficient looks. His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions without conceding mismatches was the defining feature of his performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 26.3m -13.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 15.8m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Defensive bleeding on the perimeter was the primary culprit for a disastrous -7.8 net impact. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, failing to stay in front of quicker wings and forcing the defense into scramble mode. A lack of offensive assertiveness meant he offered zero resistance to the negative momentum he generated.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 15.8m -7.9
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 14.8m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite floor spacing and decisive shot-making provided a steadying offensive presence. He didn't force the issue, taking only what the defense gave him to maintain a highly efficient scoring profile. His gravity on the perimeter opened up crucial driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 14.8m -7.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Disruptive on-ball defense (+3.5) set the tone during his minutes, frustrating opposing wings and blowing up set plays. While his offensive impact was minimal, he avoided costly mistakes and kept the ball moving. His relentless energy in navigating screens provided a subtle but vital boost to the defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 12.2m -6.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 10.5m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Complete offensive invisibility allowed the opposing defense to cheat off him and crowd the paint. He failed to register a single statistical contribution on offense, essentially acting as a dead spot in the half-court spacing. His inability to punish aggressive help defense dragged down his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 10.5m -5.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.9m
36
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.7

An overwhelming offensive engine whose sheer volume of high-value shot creation shattered the defense's scheme. Aggressive downhill drives forced constant help, opening up the floor and driving a massive +24.8 box score impact. The sheer physical dominance in isolation mismatches defined this performance, masking any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 37.9m -18.8
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Desmond Bane 36.1m
22
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.2

Poor perimeter shot selection dragged down his overall impact despite decent offensive creation. Forcing contested looks from deep negated the value he provided as a secondary playmaker. His inability to find a rhythm against aggressive closeouts ultimately neutralized his overall effectiveness on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 36.1m -17.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.0

Relentless activity in the paint generated a massive +5.7 hustle score, keeping possessions alive and wearing down the opposing frontcourt. He dominated the interior positioning battle, converting high-percentage looks at the rim to sustain a highly efficient offensive rhythm. Physical screen-setting and rim-running completely dictated the tempo of the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 36.0m -17.9
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.8

Defensive rotations drove his positive net rating, consistently disrupting passing lanes to generate a +5.7 defensive impact. His perimeter shot selection was highly efficient, allowing him to capitalize on spacing without forcing action. The rookie's ability to stay attached to shooters on the weak side defined his steady, low-mistake performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 31.7m -15.8
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Black 30.5m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.6

Elite point-of-attack defense (+9.1) was completely undone by disastrous offensive execution and wasted possessions. He repeatedly stalled out the offense by forcing low-percentage floaters and contested drives into traffic. The stark contrast between his defensive tenacity and offensive ineptitude made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.1
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 30.5m -15.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
Jett Howard 20.6m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

A complete lack of offensive rhythm cratered his overall impact during his rotation minutes. He settled for rushed perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, failing to pressure the rim or bend the defense. Being targeted on switches further compounded his struggles to find a foothold in the game.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 20.6m -10.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jevon Carter 16.2m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Offensive invisibility resulted in a steep negative impact, essentially forcing his team to play four-on-five on that end of the floor. While he provided adequate ball pressure defensively, his inability to threaten the defense completely cramped the floor spacing. A string of empty possessions defined a stint where he was purely a passenger.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 16.2m -8.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

High-energy weakside rotations and active hands drove a strong +4.2 hustle rating in limited action. He maximized his short stint by blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could materialize. This brief burst of defensive disruption provided a crucial momentum swing for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 15.2m -7.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Defensive bleeding negated his modest offensive contributions around the basket. He struggled heavily in drop coverage, consistently allowing guards to turn the corner and compromise the paint. Those breakdowns in pick-and-roll defense ultimately outweighed his interior scoring.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 10.5m -5.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Barely registered an imprint on the game during a brief, uneventful stint. A lack of aggression on the perimeter allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. He essentially served as a placeholder without generating any tangible advantages.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.2m -2.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0