Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAC lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
LAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 191 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Giddey Hard 8/20 +1.1
Buzelis Hard 6/18 -4.7
Miller 6/14 -4.1
Jones Open 10/11 +7.7
Richards Open 3/10 -5.1
Dillingham 5/9 +2.3
Williams Hard 0/7 -7.3
Yabusele 4/6 +4.5

LAC LAC Shot-making Δ

Leonard 8/22 -5.2
Mathurin 10/19 -0.5
Miller 6/13 -1.7
Dunn 4/11 -4.3
Lopez 5/10 +0.1
Sanders Hard 4/8 +2.1
Jones Jr. 4/5 +3.2
Jackson Open 4/5 +2.0
Batum Hard 1/3 -0.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
LAC
42/95 Field Goals 46/96
44.2% Field Goal % 47.9%
12/41 3-Pointers 9/32
29.3% 3-Point % 28.1%
12/13 Free Throws 18/24
92.3% Free Throw % 75.0%
53.6% True Shooting % 55.8%
56 Total Rebounds 56
12 Offensive 10
36 Defensive 36
23 Assists 28
1.53 Assist/TO Ratio 4.67
13 Turnovers 6
5 Steals 8
7 Blocks 12
19 Fouls 13
56 Points in Paint 70
12 Fast Break Pts 13
4 Points off TOs 17
9 Second Chance Pts 16
25 Bench Points 51
1 Largest Lead 14
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Derrick Jones Jr.
10 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 33.6 MIN
+19.9
2
Josh Giddey
20 PTS · 11 REB · 10 AST · 38.9 MIN
+19.54
3
Bennedict Mathurin
26 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 27.8 MIN
+19.0
4
Kawhi Leonard
28 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 33.0 MIN
+15.44
5
Tre Jones
21 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 30.0 MIN
+15.37
6
Leonard Miller
14 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 35.9 MIN
+14.49
7
Jordan Miller
14 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 26.6 MIN
+13.04
8
Isaiah Jackson
8 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 16.9 MIN
+12.26
9
Brook Lopez
11 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 31.1 MIN
+12.16
10
Kris Dunn
8 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 29.0 MIN
+11.92
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 B. Mathurin REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 108–119
Q4 0:17 MISS N. Richards 24' 3PT 108–119
Q4 0:26 B. Mathurin Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 108–119
Q4 0:26 B. Mathurin Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 108–118
Q4 0:26 N. Richards shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Mathurin 2 FT) 108–117
Q4 0:35 B. Lopez REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 108–117
Q4 0:39 MISS M. Buzelis 25' 3PT 108–117
Q4 0:45 N. Richards REBOUND (Off:3 Def:5) 108–117
Q4 0:47 MISS B. Mathurin driving reverse Layup 108–117
Q4 0:59 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–117
Q4 1:00 MISS J. Miller 3PT 108–117
Q4 1:08 D. Jones Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 108–117
Q4 1:12 B. Lopez BLOCK (5 BLK) 108–117
Q4 1:12 MISS N. Richards alley-oop DUNK - blocked 108–117
Q4 1:13 TEAM offensive REBOUND 108–117

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

LAC LA Clippers
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.7

Relentless energy and elite point-of-attack coverage drove a massive +8.7 defensive rating. He completely shut down his primary assignment on the perimeter while generating crucial extra possessions via a +4.0 hustle score. Taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense +5.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 33.0m
28
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Forcing up heavily contested mid-range jumpers severely depressed his overall efficiency. He clanked over a dozen field goal attempts, which prevented his otherwise solid +3.1 hustle rating from translating into a dominant net score. Only his sheer gravity as a primary scorer and timely weak-side digs kept his final impact marginally positive.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 31.1m
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

An absolute fortress in drop coverage, his towering +12.9 defensive metric single-handedly dictated the flow of the game. He deterred countless drives to the rim and actively contested every shot in the paint. That elite rim protection easily erased the minor negative impact of a few forced perimeter jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 28.9m
8
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
0.0

Smothering on-ball pressure and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a robust +7.2 defensive score. Unfortunately, his offensive execution was a glaring liability, as he bricked multiple outside looks and stalled half-court sets. His relentless hustle (+3.1) was the sole reason he managed to stay in the green by the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kobe Sanders 25.9m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Careless ball security and poorly timed fouls completely undermined a highly efficient shooting performance. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards forced him into rotation mistakes, dragging his net rating down to -3.8. The crisp perimeter stroke simply couldn't compensate for how much he gave away on the margins.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.7

Phenomenal downhill aggression and a +4.6 hustle rating allowed him to constantly pressure the rim and generate high-value looks. He absorbed contact brilliantly, punishing mismatches in the paint to drive a stellar +8.9 net impact. Even a cold night from beyond the arc couldn't slow down his relentless interior attack.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Disciplined defensive rotations and excellent positional awareness generated a sturdy +6.5 rating on that end of the floor. He consistently forced his man into contested midrange pull-ups, neutralizing their primary actions. While his finishing was slightly erratic, his defensive reliability kept his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Supreme vertical spacing and elite rim deterrence packed a massive +10.3 impact into a short burst of playing time. He anchored the second unit with a +7.0 defensive rating, consistently altering shots from the weak side. Never forcing his own offense allowed him to maximize every single possession he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.9

A passive approach on both ends of the floor resulted in a sluggish -2.7 net rating during his rotational minutes. He failed to make an imprint on the glass and registered a meager +0.8 hustle score. Being a step slow on closeouts allowed opposing shooters to find early rhythm against his coverage.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 38.9m
20
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+17.4

Active hands in passing lanes and excellent rebounding positioning drove a stellar +7.7 defensive impact score. Although he wasted several possessions with erratic perimeter chucking, his relentless transition hustle (+3.3) mitigated the damage. Operating as the primary defensive communicator allowed him to maintain a positive overall rating despite the heavy volume of missed shots.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +11.1
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Leonard Miller 35.9m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Poor perimeter shot selection cratered his overall value, as he forced contested looks from beyond the arc. While his weak-side rotations provided a solid +5.8 defensive boost, the wasted offensive possessions ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. His inability to stretch the floor neutralized his otherwise active interior presence.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 34.4m
18
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

A brutal volume-shooting night tanked his overall rating, as chucking heavily contested perimeter jumpers killed offensive momentum. He settled for outside looks rather than attacking the paint, resulting in a steep -7.2 net impact. The sheer number of empty possessions completely overshadowed his adequate weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +14.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nick Richards 29.9m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Despite anchoring the paint with a robust +7.0 defensive rating, his inability to finish around the rim kept his net score negative. Whiffing on numerous high-percentage looks as a primary roll man stalled out several half-court sets. The defensive rim protection simply wasn't enough to offset those squandered scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Tre Jones 29.9m
21
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Elite shot selection and near-perfect finishing inside the arc generated a massive +17.3 box metric. However, getting consistently blown by at the point of attack resulted in a -1.9 defensive score, nearly wiping out his offensive masterclass. His surgical execution in the pick-and-roll was the only thing keeping his final impact above water.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +20.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.6

Hidden mistakes completely derailed an otherwise highly efficient shooting performance. Costly defensive lapses and poorly timed fouls dragged his net rating down to -3.6 despite his crisp perimeter execution. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, giving back every point he generated on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-19.8

An absolute offensive black hole tonight, his inability to hit even a single shot resulted in a disastrous -11.8 net impact. He repeatedly stalled ball movement by bricking wide-open spot-up looks from the corner. While his on-ball defense remained stout (+4.8), playing essentially 4-on-5 offensively doomed the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring -3.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Flawless perimeter execution masked a severe lack of physical engagement on the margins. A meager +0.6 hustle rating reflects his failure to secure loose balls or box out effectively against heavier matchups. Those unforced errors in the possession battle ultimately dragged his total impact into the negative despite his hot hand.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

A brief, ineffective stint at the end of the rotation yielded a quick -2.0 impact score. He failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance or hustle plays during his limited minutes. Getting targeted on switches immediately upon entering the game neutralized his floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Logged less than a minute of floor time, resulting in a negligible -0.3 impact score. There simply wasn't enough run to evaluate his defensive positioning or offensive flow. He was essentially a placeholder for a single end-of-quarter possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0