GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 37.7m
27
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.5

Heavy reliance on low-percentage perimeter shots suppressed his overall impact, despite a stat-stuffing performance. The high volume of empty possessions and potential defensive lapses in transition offset his playmaking and rebounding. His scoring output simply wasn't efficient enough to overcome the negative momentum generated by missed threes.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 34.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 37.7m -17.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 7
S Austin Reaves 36.8m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.0

A disastrous shooting performance cratered his offensive value, completely negating his surprisingly strong defensive metrics (+7.1). Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock derailed the team's offensive rhythm. While he tried to compensate with high-motor hustle plays (+3.6), the sheer volume of wasted possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 36.8m -17.4
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
S LeBron James 33.5m
21
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite highly efficient interior scoring and solid defensive metrics (+4.3), hidden costs like defensive transition lapses or unforced errors dragged his overall impact slightly into the red. His struggles from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag, congesting the half-court offense. The robust box score masked underlying rotational inefficiencies during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 33.5m -15.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Marcus Smart 29.8m
10
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.1

An absolute defensive masterclass (+13.5) and relentless hustle plays completely overshadowed a subpar shooting night. He blew up opposing actions at the point of attack, generating massive value through deflections and loose ball recoveries (+6.3). This performance epitomized how a player can dominate a game without scoring efficiently.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +13.5
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 29.8m -14.1
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 4
BLK 3
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 25.1m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Surgical precision around the basket fueled a dominant box score rating (+12.4), continuing his streak of hyper-efficient finishing. He established deep post position early, forcing the defense to collapse and punishing them with soft touch. Adequate rim protection (+3.2) ensured his offensive gains weren't given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 25.1m -11.8
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 22.9m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.7

Elite rim-running and phenomenal hustle (+6.8) translated to a massive positive impact in a specialized role. He maximized his touches with explosive finishing, punishing defensive rotations. His ability to generate second-chance opportunities and secure loose balls completely tilted the momentum when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +34.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 22.9m -10.9
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Luke Kennard 21.2m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

A lack of defensive resistance (-0.3) and minimal hustle involvement allowed opponents to exploit his minutes, sinking his overall value. While his perimeter shooting was highly efficient, he simply didn't generate enough volume to outpace the points given up on the other end. He operated as a one-way spacer whose defensive limitations were heavily targeted.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 21.2m -10.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Firing blanks from the perimeter rendered him an offensive liability, dragging down his overall rating. He failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities, allowing the defense to ignore him and clog the driving lanes. Modest defensive contributions (+2.4) were nowhere near enough to salvage the damage from his scoreless shift.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 18.6m -8.7
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 14.4m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Smart shot selection and timely defensive rotations (+2.3) resulted in a highly effective bench stint. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns without forcing the issue, maintaining his recent trend of efficient scoring. This disciplined, mistake-free basketball provided a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 14.4m -6.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 36.4m
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Strong defensive metrics (+8.9) kept his overall impact above water despite a rough shooting night from the perimeter. The heavy volume of missed threes severely capped his offensive ceiling. His willingness to contest shots and generate hustle events ultimately salvaged a positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.9
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 36.4m -17.2
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 33.3m
24
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.6

Relentless interior finishing drove a massive box score impact (+15.4), overwhelming defenders in the paint. While his defensive metrics were modest, his sheer efficiency around the rim dictated the game's tempo. Maintaining his recent hot streak, he consistently punished mismatches without needing to step outside the arc.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 33.3m -15.8
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 33.3m
2
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.7

Elite defensive disruption (+10.2) and high-motor hustle plays entirely carried his value on a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. The total inability to space the floor dragged his offensive impact to neutral. He essentially operated as a defensive specialist, locking down the perimeter to offset the bricked open looks.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +10.2
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 33.3m -15.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trey Murphy III 32.9m
21
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Steady perimeter shot-making provided a reliable offensive anchor, translating to a strong box score rating. He blended his scoring punch with active weak-side rotations, yielding solid defensive metrics. Punishing late closeouts defined his night, perfectly complementing the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 32.9m -15.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dejounte Murray 27.9m
15
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.2

Playmaking and defensive anticipation fueled a positive net rating, overcoming a mediocre shooting performance. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by finding gaps in the defense and converting timely looks. His ability to generate extra possessions through hustle (+3.7) stabilized the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 27.9m -13.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Derik Queen 19.3m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.3

A complete lack of offensive rhythm and poor defensive positioning (-1.5) resulted in a steep negative impact. Failing to convert any field goal attempts severely hampered the second unit's momentum. He struggled to establish any physical presence inside, allowing opponents to exploit his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 19.3m -9.1
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.7

The offense stalled significantly during his shifts, reflected in a brutal box score drop-off (-5.1). A sharp decline from his recent scoring tear left the bench lacking a reliable initiator. Inability to string together stops compounded the damage of his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total -4.8
Avg player in 18.8m -8.9
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Flawless execution in the pick-and-roll maximized his limited minutes, generating a highly efficient box score impact. He anchored the paint defensively (+3.2), deterring drives and securing the glass. This was a textbook veteran shift, providing stability without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 16.1m -7.6
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Opportunistic scoring and active off-ball movement translated to a surprisingly robust box score rating (+5.7) in limited action. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns, converting his few looks with high efficiency. Solid hustle metrics ensured he was a net positive during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -35.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 16.0m -7.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 6.0m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Brief rotational minutes yielded a near-neutral impact, as mild defensive contributions (+1.8) balanced out offensive invisibility. He failed to replicate his recent finishing success, struggling to find space in the paint. The lack of rebounding or hustle generation kept him from moving the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 6.0m -2.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0