GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Rui Hachimura 40.2m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

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
Offense +13.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 40.2m -27.0
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
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
+3.8

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
Offense +23.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 38.5m -25.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
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
+7.3

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
Offense +28.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 37.1m -24.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
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
+31.9

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
Offense +41.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +11.4
Raw total +56.5
Avg player in 36.7m -24.6
Impact +31.9
How is this calculated?
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
+3.5

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
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +12.8
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 33.2m -22.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
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
-7.9

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
Offense +0.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 21.1m -14.2
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
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
-6.8

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
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 19.6m -13.2
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
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
-3.5

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
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 9.6m -6.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
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
-0.6

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
Offense +2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 3.8m -2.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
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
+4.6

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
Offense +19.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.0
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 39.8m -26.7
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
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
-3.0

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
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.9
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 35.4m -23.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
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
+1.1

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
Offense +17.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 32.0m -21.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
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
-1.9

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
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 31.1m -20.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
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
-3.9

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
Offense +13.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 30.4m -20.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
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
-7.1

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
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 29.4m -19.8
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
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
-2.4

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
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 25.6m -17.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
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
-2.2

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
Offense +2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 10.1m -6.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
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
-0.2

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
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 6.3m -4.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2