GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 31.7m
44
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+28.2

A relentless barrage of step-back threes dismantled the defensive scheme and drove a historically dominant offensive rating. Surprisingly stout post defense and flawless orchestration further amplified his massive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 7/14 (50.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.8%
USG% 45.8%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +30.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.3
Raw total +46.4
Avg player in 31.7m -18.2
Impact +28.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
S Marcus Smart 28.8m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

Defensive gambles and poor transition awareness fueled massive opponent runs while he was on the floor. Over-helping off shooters created a cascade of open looks that completely erased his highly efficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 28.8m -16.6
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Austin Reaves 28.6m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.6

Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and driving a highly negative defensive score. These glaring perimeter lapses completely undid the value of his loose-ball recoveries and scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +6.5
Defense -3.3
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 28.6m -16.5
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaxson Hayes 25.4m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

The streak of highly efficient finishing around the basket continued as he served as a constant lob threat. Solid interior defense and rim deterrence helped secure a modest positive margin during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 25.4m -14.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Rui Hachimura 23.2m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A reliable scoring punch from the baseline and wings kept the offense ticking. However, his tendency to float defensively resulted in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 23.2m -13.4
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 26.7m
15
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Late closeouts were punished with lethal precision from beyond the arc. He kept the offensive spacing pristine while holding up surprisingly well in team defensive concepts.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +44.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 26.7m -15.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 22.6m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Adapting to the speed of the game proved difficult, as he consistently arrived late on defensive rotations. Perfect shooting from the floor could not salvage a stint defined by sluggish lateral movement.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 22.6m -13.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Floor spacing was severely cramped for the primary playmakers due to his offensive invisibility. While he provided his usual defensive versatility, the lack of scoring gravity proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 21.1m -12.1
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 15.9m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Several contested looks forced early in the shot clock killed offensive momentum. A lack of physicality on the defensive glass allowed second-chance opportunities that sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 15.9m -9.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

A brief rotational stint passed without him making any tangible imprint on the game. Passive offensive positioning allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -98.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 5.0m -2.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Instant spacing was injected with a quick-trigger perimeter make during garbage time. He played within himself to maintain a perfectly balanced net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -108.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Perimeter attempts were rushed as he looked completely out of rhythm offensively. Blown assignments in pick-and-roll coverage exacerbated a highly negative short shift.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -108.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

The game's pace clearly overwhelmed him, resulting in poor spacing and defensive confusion. A quick missed jumper highlighted an ineffective cameo appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -108.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 3.7m -2.1
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jay Huff 33.2m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Timely weak-side blocks and massive rim deterrence fueled a highly positive defensive rating. Offensively, he stretched the floor just enough to pull the opposing center out of the paint and open up driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 33.2m -19.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 31.1m
17
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.4

A string of clanked three-pointers late in the shot clock negated the value of his otherwise efficient dribble penetration. He orchestrated the offense well, but poor shot selection from deep dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 31.1m -18.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 29.4m
26
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Relentlessly punished mismatches in the mid-post to generate consistent isolation scoring. His defensive versatility anchored the frontcourt, easily offsetting the damage from a cold night beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.1
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 29.4m -16.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 26.9m
10
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.9

Hesitation to attack closeouts disrupted the offensive flow, leading to passive stretches in the half-court. Despite strong defensive rotations and active hustle metrics, his reluctance to score pulled his overall impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 26.9m -15.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 22.8m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Forced perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock completely derailed his offensive rhythm. While his point-of-attack defense remained stout, the sheer volume of empty possessions cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 22.8m -13.1
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 26.0m
5
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Fantastic energy and defensive disruption provided a much-needed spark for the second unit. However, a severe inability to capitalize on wide-open catch-and-shoot looks limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 26.0m -14.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

Relentless rim pressure and pesky on-ball defense completely changed the game's tempo. His ability to snake the pick-and-roll kept the opposing defense in constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 17.8m -10.3
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Crucial extra possessions were generated through sheer hustle and relentless crashing of the offensive glass. His erratic perimeter shooting was salvaged by high-energy plays in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 17.8m -10.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 14.2m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Maximized his limited minutes by executing perfectly within the flow of the offense. Bone-crushing screens consistently freed up perimeter shooters, driving a highly efficient offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 14.2m -8.2
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Obi Toppin 11.0m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Transition opportunities completely dried up, neutralizing his primary rim-running threat and cratering his scoring output. Poor defensive positioning in the half-court compounded a highly ineffective stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 11.0m -6.3
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 9.9m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Decisive, high-percentage finishes allowed him to capitalize on every offensive touch. A brief lapse in weak-side defensive awareness was easily masked by his flawless shooting execution.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 9.9m -5.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0