GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 29.2m
28
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+13.5

Supreme offensive orchestration and lethal shot-making generated an overwhelming positive impact. He systematically dismantled defensive schemes, creating high-leverage opportunities for himself and others. This relentless offensive pressure simply overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 73.4%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 29.2m -17.6
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Austin Reaves 27.1m
12
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.6

Inefficient perimeter shooting dragged down an otherwise active hustle performance. He struggled to find his rhythm against physical coverage, forcing contested jumpers that stalled the offensive flow. The resulting empty possessions negated his positive contributions in the margins.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 27.1m -16.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S LeBron James 26.8m
24
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite shot selection and surgical perimeter execution drove a highly positive overall impact. He consistently manipulated the defense to generate high-value looks, punishing drop coverage with exceptional efficiency. This masterful orchestration of the half-court offense dictated the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 26.8m -16.1
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Marcus Smart 24.9m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.9

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and elite hustle metrics combined for a massive two-way performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm while punishing them with timely perimeter shooting. Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, his relentless energy set the tone for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +7.4
Defense +12.4
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 24.9m -15.0
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 18.0m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.0

Flawless interior finishing and stout rim protection fueled a dominant two-way metric. He established deep post position early and often, converting every look while deterring drives on the opposite end. This perfect execution around the basket anchored a highly successful stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 18.0m -10.8
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 25.8m
11
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

Subpar finishing inside the three-point line offset his solid perimeter marksmanship. He struggled to create separation when chased off the arc, leading to empty possessions that hurt the overall offensive flow. This one-dimensional scoring profile limited his net value.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 25.8m -15.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Struggles to convert inside the arc severely hampered his overall effectiveness. While he found some success from deep, his inability to finish through contact or hit midrange looks disrupted the offensive rhythm. This interior inefficiency ultimately dragged his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.3m -13.5
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 21.8m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Disastrous shooting efficiency completely tanked his impact score despite decent defensive metrics. He repeatedly forced low-quality shots against set defenses, squandering possessions and fueling opponent momentum. The inability to convert open looks defined a highly detrimental offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 21.8m -13.1
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 13.5m
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Perfect execution on limited offensive touches and solid positional defense drove a highly efficient outing. Breaking out of a severe slump, he capitalized on defensive breakdowns to provide a crucial scoring lift. This flawless supplementary play stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 13.5m -8.1
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 12.6m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A sharp drop in usage and minimal defensive impact resulted in a slightly negative overall score. Despite perfect finishing on limited touches, he failed to assert himself as a rim deterrent or rebounding force. The lack of physical imposition defined his quiet stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 12.6m -7.6
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral impact score reflected a low-usage, mistake-free stint on the floor. He operated strictly within the flow of the offense, taking only what the defense conceded without forcing the issue. This passive but stable approach resulted in a break-even performance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 6.3m -3.7
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Maximizing a brief cameo, he converted his only opportunity to provide a quick positive jolt. He stayed within his role, avoiding mistakes while providing a spark of energy in garbage time. This hyper-efficient snippet of play yielded a solid net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 3.9m -2.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Sound defensive positioning and perfect offensive execution highlighted a brief but highly effective appearance. He immediately capitalized on his lone touch while remaining disciplined on the other end of the floor. This focused, error-free stretch maximized his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Forcing up poor shots in limited action quickly dragged his impact score into the red. He struggled to find the game's rhythm, wasting possessions on contested jumpers rather than moving the ball. This erratic shot selection derailed the offense during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 3.9m -2.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 41.6m
26
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

An explosive scoring surge drove a massive box score metric, though hidden give-backs slightly muted the overall total. He consistently exploited mismatches on the perimeter, creating high-quality looks to shatter his recent scoring averages. This aggressive shot creation dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 41.6m -25.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 33.8m
16
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

A pristine shooting night was completely undermined by hidden negative value like turnovers or poor transition defense that dragged down his overall metric. While he feasted on interior touches, the team bled points during his shifts. The stark contrast between his scoring efficiency and negative impact highlights empty-calorie production.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 33.8m -20.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 60.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Defensive anchoring and relentless hustle plays kept his impact positive despite a dip in finishing efficiency. He dominated the interior matchups, generating extra possessions through sheer physical exertion. This grinding, blue-collar performance masked his struggles around the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 26.7m -16.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 22.0m
9
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.9

Despite highly efficient shooting, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to an uncharacteristically passive offensive approach. Failing to generate his usual scoring volume limited Sacramento's half-court ceiling. The lack of aggression defined his floor time, neutralizing his typically strong playmaking.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 22.0m -13.2
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.9

Disastrous perimeter shot selection cratered his overall value, wasting multiple possessions on low-percentage looks. The complete lack of hustle contributions further compounded the damage from his erratic offensive decision-making. Settling for early-clock jumpers allowed the defense to off-load entirely.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.6%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 22.0m -13.1
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.7

An absolute offensive freeze-out destroyed his impact score, as he failed to connect on a single field goal attempt. Without his usual scoring punch, his minutes became a massive liability that the team could not overcome. The inability to adjust his shot profile when struggling defined this rough outing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -56.6
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 25.3m -15.2
Impact -15.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Devin Carter 20.7m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

Poor finishing and a lack of perimeter gravity dragged his net score deep into the red. He struggled to generate quality separation, forcing contested looks that fueled opponent transition opportunities. This offensive stagnation overshadowed marginal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 20.7m -12.3
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 16.3m
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

A noticeable drop in scoring volume limited his ability to swing the game's momentum. While his perimeter stroke remained somewhat steady, he failed to pressure the rim or collapse the defense as he typically does. The resulting perimeter-heavy approach yielded a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 16.3m -9.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 14.2m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

High-energy rim protection and active rotations fueled a solidly positive outing. He capitalized on his interior touches while anchoring the paint defensively during his brief stint. This reliable two-way execution provided crucial stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 14.2m -8.5
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.8

An astronomical defensive rating propelled his impact score, completely overshadowing a quiet offensive night. He utilized his length perfectly to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots, shutting down opponent actions on the wing. This specialized defensive masterclass defined his highly effective minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +10.7
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 11.0m -6.7
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his brief stint on the floor. Failing to register a single point or pressure the defense, his presence allowed opponents to cheat off him and clog the half-court spacing. The lack of aggression rendered him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 6.3m -3.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0