Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAL lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
LAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 10/20 -0.9
Nembhard Hard 7/14 +1.7
Huff Hard 6/13 +0.8
McConnell 5/10 -0.2
Nesmith Hard 3/10 -3.7
Walker Hard 4/9 +0.4
Jackson 3/6 -1.1
Sheppard Hard 2/6 -1.7
Toppin 1/4 -2.8
Brown Open 3/3 +3.1

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 14/25 +13.0
Reaves Hard 6/14 -0.6
Kennard Hard 6/9 +6.4
Hachimura 5/8 +3.7
LaRavia 3/7 -1.1
Smart Hard 4/6 +5.1
Hayes Open 3/6 -2.2
Vanderbilt Open 1/4 -3.0
Timme Open 2/2 +1.7
Bufkin Hard 0/2 -2.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
LAL
46/98 Field Goals 45/85
46.9% Field Goal % 52.9%
8/35 3-Pointers 17/37
22.9% 3-Point % 45.9%
17/24 Free Throws 21/23
70.8% Free Throw % 91.3%
53.9% True Shooting % 67.3%
52 Total Rebounds 49
12 Offensive 6
28 Defensive 37
33 Assists 25
4.71 Assist/TO Ratio 1.92
7 Turnovers 12
10 Steals 5
4 Blocks 2
19 Fouls 22
62 Points in Paint 52
18 Fast Break Pts 11
17 Points off TOs 11
18 Second Chance Pts 4
41 Bench Points 32
5 Largest Lead 24
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luka Dončić
44 PTS · 9 REB · 5 AST · 31.7 MIN
+41.05
2
Jay Huff
16 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 33.2 MIN
+19.19
3
Pascal Siakam
26 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 29.4 MIN
+17.84
4
Luke Kennard
15 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 26.7 MIN
+17.03
5
Andrew Nembhard
17 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 31.1 MIN
+14.73
6
Micah Potter
8 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 14.1 MIN
+12.32
7
T.J. McConnell
10 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 17.8 MIN
+12.23
8
Rui Hachimura
13 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 23.2 MIN
+11.96
9
Jaxson Hayes
9 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 25.4 MIN
+11.58
10
Jarace Walker
10 PTS · 9 REB · 5 AST · 26.9 MIN
+7.96
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:17 J. Walker running DUNK (10 PTS) 117–128
Q4 0:20 J. Walker STEAL (1 STL) 115–128
Q4 0:20 D. Knecht lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 115–128
Q4 0:36 C. Mañon REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 115–128
Q4 0:38 MISS B. Sheppard Free Throw 1 of 1 115–128
Q4 0:38 D. Timme shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Sheppard 1 FT) 115–128
Q4 0:38 B. Sheppard driving Layup (5 PTS) (M. Potter 3 AST) 115–128
Q4 0:41 M. Potter REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 113–128
Q4 0:45 MISS J. Huff 27' running 3PT 113–128
Q4 0:49 J. Walker REBOUND (Off:1 Def:8) 113–128
Q4 0:52 MISS K. Bufkin 3PT 113–128
Q4 1:07 J. Huff Free Throw 2 of 2 (16 PTS) 113–128
Q4 1:07 J. Huff Free Throw 1 of 2 (15 PTS) 112–128
Q4 1:07 K. Bufkin personal FOUL (2 PF) (Huff 2 FT) 111–128
Q4 1:10 J. Walker REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 111–128

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 31.7m
44
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+45.2

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
Scoring +35.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +10.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.8
Turnovers -7.1
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
-2.2

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
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
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
-5.5

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
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -7.8
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
+3.2

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
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
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
+5.4

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
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
+12.0

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
Scoring +12.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-9.0

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
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
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
-5.8

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
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +7.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
-9.7

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
Scoring +4.9
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -2.4
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
-7.2

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
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -1.5
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
-8.2

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.5

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
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.6

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
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jay Huff 33.2m
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.6

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
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
+8.1

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
Scoring +11.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
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
+15.0

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
Scoring +17.7
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -5.4
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
-0.6

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
Scoring +6.2
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
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
-10.0

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
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -3.1
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
-4.6

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
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
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
+4.4

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
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
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
-5.3

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
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
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
+6.1

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
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-8.9

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
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
-1.4

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
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0