GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 38.8m
25
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.6

A spectacular +14.6 total impact was fueled by aggressive scoring and exceptional defensive metrics (+9.0). While eight missed shots and likely turnovers slightly reduced his massive box score value (+18.5), his ability to navigate screens and contest perimeter shooters was game-changing. Operating as a dual-threat primary initiator kept the opposing defense entirely off-balance.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.0
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 38.8m -16.9
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 38.4m
35
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.3

High-volume shot creation and elite hustle (+7.6) drove a robust +9.3 overall impact, though 14 missed field goals prevented an even larger number. The sheer offensive burden he carried forced the defense into constant rotation, opening up passing lanes across the floor. Physical rebounding and defensive engagement (+6.7) provided a crucial secondary layer of value.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 5/16 (31.2%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 39.6%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 38.4m -16.8
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Rui Hachimura 36.8m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite an uptick in scoring and solid defensive metrics (+4.2), a negative total impact (-1.8) suggests that his six missed shots and hidden mistakes like turnovers or fouls were highly detrimental. Struggling to secure contested rebounds allowed second-chance points that erased his offensive gains. Scoring in isolation masked the overall drag he placed on the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 36.8m -16.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 29.3m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

An abysmal shooting night severely handicapped his offensive value, yet phenomenal hustle (+7.8) and defensive (+6.9) metrics nearly balanced the scales (-0.3 total). Relentless point-of-attack defense and a willingness to dive for loose balls disrupted the opponent's rhythm all night. The sheer volume of empty offensive trips was the only thing preventing a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +47.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +7.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 29.3m -12.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 19.9m
6
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Flawless interior finishing and strong defensive positioning (+5.0) culminated in a highly effective +5.9 total impact. The slight penalty from his raw box score (+7.7) likely stems from a stray turnover or missed rotation, but his rim protection remained elite. Anchoring the paint and altering shots at the basket defined his highly efficient 20 minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 19.9m -8.6
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Luke Kennard 26.9m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A solid scoring night was completely undone by hidden negative factors, resulting in a -3.2 total impact despite decent defensive numbers (+2.6). The gap between his box score (+5.7) and net score implies that poorly timed fouls or transition defensive lapses proved costly. Opponents successfully targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, neutralizing his perimeter shooting value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 26.9m -11.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 16.6m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Failing to convert any of his field goal attempts dragged down his offensive value, but active defense (+3.1) and hustle (+1.4) kept his head above water (+0.8). Rim-running gravity still forced defensive shifts, even if he couldn't capitalize on the touches. Contesting shots at the summit defined his stint, mitigating the damage of his empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 44.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 16.6m -7.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 12.9m
6
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Perfect shooting from the field drove a highly efficient box score metric (+9.3), translating to a solid +2.5 overall impact. A negative defensive rating (-1.6) and likely a few turnovers kept his final score from matching his offensive brilliance. Decisive cutting and quick decision-making against closeouts provided a vital spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 12.9m -5.6
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Minimal offensive involvement and a slight negative defensive metric (-0.3) resulted in a neutral overall impact (-0.1). The underlying data suggests that a missed shot and potential fouls wiped out his modest box score value (+3.9). Giving up critical defensive rebounds during his brief stint allowed the opponent to extend crucial possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 10.5m -4.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 10.0m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Failing to register a single counting stat on offense pushed his total impact into the negative (-1.3) despite minor defensive (+1.4) and hustle (+1.1) contributions. Reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. Serving primarily as a positional placeholder, he failed to leave a meaningful imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 10.0m -4.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 42.1m
24
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.1

Despite high-volume shooting and solid hustle metrics (+4.0), a brutal -8.1 total impact exposes the hidden costs of his 11 missed shots and probable turnovers. The sheer number of empty offensive trips allowed the opponent to consistently push the pace against a retreating defense. Forcing contested mid-range pull-ups against set defenders ultimately did more harm than good.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 42.1m -18.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 7
S OG Anunoby 38.0m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

A stark negative overall impact (-1.7) reveals that missed perimeter shots and likely live-ball turnovers completely erased his strong defensive (+3.5) and hustle (+2.6) metrics. Failing to find a rhythm from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag off, stagnating the half-court offense. The underlying numbers indicate he gave back far more in transition defense than he generated.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 38.0m -16.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
25
pts
16
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.9

Dominant interior positioning drove a massive box score impact (+15.9), anchoring the team's offensive success. However, missing nine field goal attempts and likely accumulating fouls trimmed his total net score down to +8.9. Drawing consistent double teams in the post defined the matchup, even if the efficiency wasn't flawless.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 33.9m -14.7
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 27.4m
0
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.1

An inability to generate any offense cratered his overall impact (-11.1), as his missed shots functioned as empty possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. While he managed to scrape together some minor defensive (+2.1) and hustle value, it wasn't nearly enough to offset the offensive void. Hesitating to attack closeouts disrupted the team's typical spacing and flow.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 27.4m -11.9
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Josh Hart 22.5m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Positive defensive (+4.2) and hustle metrics kept his overall impact above water despite a dip in scoring efficiency. The gap between his baseline contributions and final score suggests a handful of costly turnovers or fouls dragged down an otherwise solid two-way effort. Relentless perimeter tracking helped mask the offensive drop-off from his recent hot streak.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 22.5m -9.8
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

A sharp total impact deficit (-6.4) completely overshadowed his improved scoring output and respectable defensive metrics (+3.3). The underlying data suggests that defensive breakdowns off the ball or costly turnovers negated any momentum gained from his made shots. Getting caught on screens allowed open looks that quickly erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 27.4m -11.9
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Efficient finishing around the rim and a steady defensive presence (+2.5) kept his impact slightly positive (+1.5) in limited minutes. The steep drop from his raw box score value (+5.7) points to a few poorly timed fouls or offensive turnovers that stunted his momentum. Operating primarily as a lob threat forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter even when he wasn't scoring.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 16.9m -7.4
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Struggling to find the mark offensively, his missed shots and negative defensive impact (-0.6) resulted in a noticeable drag on the lineup (-4.6). The lack of hustle stats indicates he was frequently a step slow to loose balls and long rebounds. Failing to contain his primary assignment on the perimeter compounded the damage from his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 14.6m -6.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Highly efficient shot-making drove a strong box score metric (+8.6), allowing him to serve as a reliable offensive spark plug. A negative defensive rating (-2.2) and zero hustle contributions slightly suppressed his overall impact (+2.0), as he gave up ground on the other end. Breaking down defenders in isolation was the defining element of his floor time.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 10.1m -4.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Elite hustle (+3.5) in just seven minutes showcased his trademark energy, but missed shots and a lack of scoring pulled his total impact into the red (-2.2). Aggressive ball pressure disrupted the opponent's initial sets, though it occasionally compromised the team's defensive shell. The chaotic pace he introduced yielded mixed results during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 7.2m -3.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1