Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAL lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
LAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 194 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Buzelis Hard 7/19 -1.6
Giddey Hard 10/17 +9.8
Jones Open 8/16 -3.2
Smith 5/11 -0.4
Dillingham 5/10 +0.3
Richards Open 7/9 +3.0
Miller 6/9 +2.1
Olbrich 2/2 +2.0
Kawamura Hard 1/2 +1.2

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 17/31 +14.8
Reaves 13/20 +8.6
Ayton Open 10/13 +4.2
James 7/13 -0.6
Hachimura 6/10 +4.6
Kennard Hard 1/7 -3.5
LaRavia Hard 0/3 -2.6
Timme Hard 1/2 +0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
LAL
51/95 Field Goals 55/99
53.7% Field Goal % 55.6%
15/36 3-Pointers 17/36
41.7% 3-Point % 47.2%
13/16 Free Throws 15/21
81.2% Free Throw % 71.4%
63.7% True Shooting % 65.6%
50 Total Rebounds 50
12 Offensive 14
29 Defensive 27
34 Assists 31
2.12 Assist/TO Ratio 3.10
15 Turnovers 9
7 Steals 9
3 Blocks 4
18 Fouls 15
66 Points in Paint 72
24 Fast Break Pts 13
18 Points off TOs 17
16 Second Chance Pts 30
34 Bench Points 5
7 Largest Lead 22
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luka Dončić
51 PTS · 10 REB · 9 AST · 36.7 MIN
+49.67
2
Deandre Ayton
23 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 37.1 MIN
+25.43
3
Austin Reaves
30 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 38.5 MIN
+25.16
4
Josh Giddey
27 PTS · 8 REB · 15 AST · 39.8 MIN
+24.22
5
Tre Jones
18 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 32.0 MIN
+19.23
6
Leonard Miller
15 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 31.1 MIN
+15.91
7
LeBron James
18 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 33.2 MIN
+15.59
8
Matas Buzelis
22 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 35.4 MIN
+15.23
9
Rui Hachimura
15 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 40.2 MIN
+15.0
10
Jalen Smith
14 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 30.4 MIN
+10.87
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:09 LAL shot clock Team TURNOVER 130–142
Q4 0:33 L. Miller running Layup (15 PTS) 130–142
Q4 0:38 L. Miller REBOUND (Off:3 Def:6) 128–142
Q4 0:41 MISS L. Kennard 27' running 3PT 128–142
Q4 0:45 L. Kennard STEAL (2 STL) 128–142
Q4 0:45 L. Olbrich bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 128–142
Q4 0:56 A. Reaves driving Layup (30 PTS) 128–142
Q4 1:12 L. Miller driving Layup (13 PTS) 128–140
Q4 1:12 L. Miller REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 126–140
Q4 1:16 MISS Y. Kawamura 28' pullup 3PT 126–140
Q4 1:28 A. Reaves 12' driving floating Jump Shot (28 PTS) 126–140
Q4 1:41 R. Dillingham Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 126–138
Q4 1:41 TEAM offensive REBOUND 125–138
Q4 1:41 MISS R. Dillingham Free Throw 1 of 2 125–138
Q4 1:41 L. Dončić take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Dillingham 2 FT) 125–138

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 Rui Hachimura 40.2m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

A severe lack of rebounding and playmaking from the forward spot heavily handicapped the team's half-court execution. While he knocked down open perimeter looks, his tendency to float offensively led to stagnant possessions against zone looks. The inability to impact the game outside of spot-up shooting resulted in a surprisingly negative overall mark.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Austin Reaves 38.5m
30
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.8

Relentless attacking off the dribble kept the defense constantly on its heels. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages masterfully, finding his spots in the midrange and beyond the arc to generate high-value scoring chances against drop coverage. The sheer volume of efficient shot creation against aggressive closeouts drove a highly productive offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +24.6
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +8.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 37.1m
23
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.6

Dominated the painted area with a soft touch and excellent positioning on the block. He punished smaller defenders on switches, converting high-percentage looks with remarkable consistency. His reliable interior finishing provided a crucial offensive anchor that stabilized the team's overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +10.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Luka Dončić 36.7m
51
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
+51.8

An absolute masterclass in offensive creation, systematically dismantling the opposing defense with deep perimeter daggers against switch-heavy schemes. His immense gravity warped the floor, allowing him to easily manipulate help defenders and generate high-value looks at will. The combination of historic shot-making and elite defensive rebounding resulted in a stratospheric overall impact.

Shooting
FG 17/31 (54.8%)
3PT 9/14 (64.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +40.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +12.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S LeBron James 33.2m
18
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.7

Dictated the game's flow through sheer defensive intelligence, blowing up multiple actions as a weak-side roamer. His physical dominance in the passing lanes fueled transition opportunities, compensating for a quiet night from beyond the arc. The veteran's ability to control the tempo without forcing shots resulted in a steady, positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
Jake LaRavia 21.1m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-18.3

Offensive invisibility completely derailed his time on the court, as he failed to apply any pressure on the defense. Despite showing commendable effort on rotations and loose balls, his inability to space the floor clogged the driving lanes for teammates. The complete lack of scoring punch dragged his net impact deeply into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring -2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 19.6m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.9

A brutal shooting slump from the perimeter neutralized his primary value on the floor. Opposing defenses sagged off him, effectively daring him to shoot and bogging down the team's spacing in the half-court. While he competed admirably on the defensive end, the barrage of missed triples was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.3

Operated strictly as a cardio presence during his brief stint, failing to register a single shot attempt. His usual chaotic defensive energy was noticeably absent, allowing opponents to operate comfortably in his vicinity. The lack of tangible contributions on either end during the first half resulted in a quiet, negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 3.8m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.3

Managed a quick interior bucket during a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. His lack of foot speed was briefly exposed on a defensive switch, though the sample size was too small to be overly damaging. Ultimately, he served as a brief placeholder during garbage time without significantly altering the game's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 39.8m
27
pts
8
reb
15
ast
Impact
+13.6

Masterful orchestration of the half-court offense defined this performance, highlighted by elite passing vision that picked apart defensive rotations. An unexpected explosion of off-the-dribble perimeter shot-making forced defenders to play him tight, opening up driving lanes. The combination of elite playmaking and active defensive rebounding drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Scoring +21.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +8.2
Hustle +8.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Matas Buzelis 35.4m
22
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

A heavy diet of contested perimeter looks cratered his net impact, as the sheer volume of missed shots bled offensive efficiency. While his weak-side rim rotations provided a massive defensive boost, the empty possessions on the other end gave opponents too many transition opportunities. His aggressive but inefficient shot selection against set defenses ultimately defined his negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Tre Jones 32.0m
18
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.8

Steady floor generalship kept the offense humming, driven by disciplined decision-making that minimized costly live-ball turnovers. He consistently penetrated the first line of defense to create high-quality looks for teammates, maintaining a positive impact despite lacking perimeter gravity. His ability to control the tempo in the half-court ensured a stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Leonard Miller 31.1m
15
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Efficient finishing around the rim wasn't enough to overcome significant defensive vulnerabilities in the frontcourt. He surrendered too many easy angles in drop coverage, allowing opposing guards to capitalize in the paint repeatedly. His inability to anchor the defense against the pick-and-roll erased the value of his high-percentage interior looks.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +7.5
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Smith 30.4m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Exploited repeatedly in pick-and-roll coverage, his slow lateral movement bled points at a rapid rate. While he found a rhythm offensively from beyond the arc, his minimal defensive resistance made him a constant target on switches. The resulting defensive breakdowns completely overshadowed his offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +5.1
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.0

Defensive frailties at the point of attack allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo and generate easy penetration. Even with crisp ball distribution and efficient interior scoring, his inability to fight through screens proved too costly. The constant defensive bleed on the perimeter against isolation-heavy guards ultimately resulted in a steep negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Despite converting efficiently on lob opportunities and dump-offs, his lack of rim deterrence allowed opponents to feast inside. He routinely lost positioning on box-outs, giving up crucial second-chance opportunities that fueled the opposition. These defensive shortcomings against physical bigs neutralized an otherwise flawless offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +13.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.5

Struggled to find a rhythm in a brief appearance, blending into the background offensively. While he showed active hands on defense, his lack of physical presence made him a target on switches against larger wings. The inability to generate meaningful hustle plays kept his overall impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

Provided a brief spark of interior physicality during a short rotation stint. He executed his assignments well on the defensive end, showing good positional awareness against opposing bigs. However, the limited minutes in the second half prevented him from making a more substantial dent in the overall impact metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +27.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2