GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 38.5m
31
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.2

Took over the primary creation duties with a brilliant mix of downhill drives and timely perimeter shot-making. He consistently manipulated the defense in the pick-and-roll, reading the drop coverage perfectly to generate high-quality looks. The sheer volume of successful offensive initiations drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 38.5m -20.2
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 34.9m
31
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+17.1

Orchestrated the entire game at his own pace, leveraging his massive gravity to dissect the defense despite a heavy volume of missed threes. What truly separated this performance was a shockingly dominant defensive rating, driven by elite rebounding and jumping passing lanes. He essentially controlled every single possession on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +13.3
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 34.9m -18.3
Impact +17.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Deandre Ayton 34.1m
14
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.8

Dominated the interior with excellent touch around the basket, continuing a dominant streak of high-efficiency finishing. His defensive impact was equally vital, as he walled off the paint and deterred drives without fouling. A masterclass in knowing his role, securing the glass, and punishing mismatches in the post.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 34.1m -18.0
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Marcus Smart 31.3m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Absolute chaos creation on the defensive end salvaged an otherwise mediocre shooting night. His elite hustle metrics reflect a barrage of deflections, loose ball recoveries, and blown-up screens that frustrated the opposing backcourt. He proved once again that he doesn't need to score to heavily influence winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +7.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 31.3m -16.5
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Rui Hachimura 24.5m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely erased a reasonably efficient night scoring inside the arc. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll switches, failing to navigate screens or offer rim protection. The inability to stay in front of quicker forwards turned his minutes into a defensive liability.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense -3.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 24.5m -12.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 26.4m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Passing up open looks from deep to take contested mid-range shots neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. While he converted efficiently inside the arc, the lack of three-point volume allowed the defense to pack the paint against his teammates. Minor defensive lapses further dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 26.4m -13.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 24.8m
8
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Overcame a horrific shooting night by transforming into an absolute menace on the defensive end and the glass. He crashed the boards relentlessly and made several crucial weak-side rotations to protect the rim. It was a gritty, blue-collar performance where sheer effort compensated for a broken jumper.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 24.8m -13.1
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to find a rhythm during a disjointed stint, as his lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Uncharacteristically poor defensive positioning led to easy blow-bys, negating his usual value as a stopper. The combination of offensive spacing issues and defensive mistakes resulted in a negative shift.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.9
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 14.7m -7.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 2.9m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Made the most of a tiny window of playing time by confidently stepping into a perimeter jumper and knocking it down. He didn't have time to make an impact anywhere else, but the flawless execution on his lone touch provided a minor statistical bump. A brief but effective cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Barely saw the floor, spending his few minutes chasing the play without ever getting involved in the offensive flow. A lack of tangible production in garbage time resulted in a slightly negative rating. He was simply a placeholder at the end of the bench rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Logged less than two minutes of action, offering nothing more than a warm body on the court. He didn't attempt a shot or register a meaningful defensive play during the brief stint. The minimal negative score reflects a complete lack of statistical generation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 2.0m -1.0
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Provided a microscopic positive impact purely through a single hustle play during garbage time. He deferred entirely on offense, failing to look at the basket during his brief run. A completely neutral performance defined by a lack of opportunity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 2.0m -1.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Managed to squeeze off a couple of shot attempts in under two minutes, converting once to keep his impact score hovering right at zero. He showed aggression in his limited window, though it had no bearing on the game's outcome. A fleeting appearance with negligible overall effect.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.0m -1.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

Active hands and solid hustle metrics were completely overshadowed by erratic perimeter execution. He struggled to find the range on catch-and-shoot opportunities, leading to long rebounds that fueled transition pushes the other way. The inability to capitalize on open spacing dragged his net impact heavily into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 31.5m -16.5
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 30.9m
14
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.6

An abysmal shot selection display completely torpedoed his overall rating, highlighted by forcing a massive volume of looks from beyond the arc with almost zero success. The defensive effort remained surprisingly engaged, but it couldn't salvage the sheer number of wasted possessions. This marks a concerning continuation of a severe shooting slump where he is actively shooting his team out of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/15 (13.3%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 30.9m -16.2
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Rudy Gobert 27.1m
3
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Completely marginalized as an offensive threat, failing to register a single field goal make all night. He still anchored the paint effectively with strong defensive positioning and hustle, but the lack of rim-running pressure allowed the opposing defense to ignore him entirely. That offensive invisibility kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 27.1m -14.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaden McDaniels 26.5m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

A massive drop-off from his recent offensive tear, as perimeter bricklaying cratered his overall value. While he still provided positive defensive resistance, the inability to punish closeouts stalled the half-court offense. His negative impact was entirely driven by empty possessions on the wing.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 26.5m -14.0
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Julius Randle 26.1m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Settling for contested jumpers rather than bullying his way to the rim snapped his streak of highly efficient shooting nights. Despite securing loose balls to pad his metrics, the resulting empty trips from beyond the arc weighed down his net impact. He failed to generate the usual gravity that opens up the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 26.1m -13.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 25.0m
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Provided a fantastic defensive spark off the bench, rotating well to contest shots at the rim. However, his tendency to drift to the perimeter and misfire on trail threes limited his offensive ceiling. If he had converted those deep looks instead of stalling out possessions, his overall impact would have easily flipped positive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 25.0m -13.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 19.5m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Highly efficient scoring bursts at the rim were completely negated by a porous defensive showing on the perimeter. Opposing guards consistently blew past him at the point of attack, forcing the entire rotation into scramble mode. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant he offered zero resistance when his initial assignment was beaten.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -3.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 19.5m -10.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bones Hyland 15.6m
11
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Injected immediate life into the offense by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down rhythm jumpers. Unlike his recent inefficient stretches, he played within the flow of the system and avoided costly forced shots. Surprisingly disciplined defensive rotations further boosted a highly productive reserve shift.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 15.6m -8.2
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Played the role of offensive connector perfectly during a short stint, taking only high-percentage looks while keeping the ball moving. His positional versatility shone through as he disrupted passing lanes and secured contested boards. It was a low-usage, high-efficiency masterclass in stabilizing the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 14.5m -7.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Maximized every second of his limited floor time with a hyper-aggressive scoring mentality that caught the defense sleeping. Perfect execution from beyond the arc punished defenders who dared to go under screens. This explosive micro-stint was a textbook example of instant offense swinging the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 7.5m -3.9
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Made an outsized defensive impact in garbage time by suffocating ball-handlers and blowing up dribble hand-offs. He didn't force any offensive action, simply taking what the defense gave him on a clean cut to the rim. A perfect example of executing the game plan flawlessly in a mop-up role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 3.9m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Essentially a cardio session at the end of the rotation, offering zero statistical production outside of a single swing pass. The lack of defensive mobility or hustle stats made him a slight negative during his brief appearance. He simply existed on the floor without altering the geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Capitalized on a late-game cameo by decisively hunting his shot and converting with perfect efficiency. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, he showed zero hesitation when the ball swung his way. The flawless execution on limited touches drove a quick spike in his impact rating.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Blended into the background during his brief stint, failing to log a single field goal attempt. While he showed minor flashes of defensive positioning, it wasn't enough to move the needle. A completely neutral performance that barely registered on the game's overall flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0