GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 45.5m
32
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.2

Carried the offensive load with a massive scoring spike fueled by aggressive, high-quality shot selection. His constant motion and hustle (+6.2) kept the defense scrambling, translating heavy minutes into a highly positive net result.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.5m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 45.5m -24.1
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Luka Dončić 43.0m
30
pts
11
reb
13
ast
Impact
-1.4

High-volume inefficiency from beyond the arc created empty possessions that slightly outweighed his elite playmaking. Even with strong defensive metrics (+9.1), the sheer number of missed perimeter looks dragged his massive workload into the red.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.1%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 43.0m -22.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 6
S LeBron James 40.2m
17
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.7

Despite solid defensive metrics (+5.7) and efficient shot selection, hidden costs like live-ball turnovers or poor transition recovery cratered his overall rating (-8.7). The steady baseline production masked underlying structural breakdowns during his heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 40.2m -21.4
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Marcus Smart 35.3m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.9

Completely dictated the terms of engagement with elite point-of-attack defense (+12.8) and relentless hustle (+7.2). A massive, unexpected perimeter scoring surge amplified his disruptive energy, resulting in a game-high +18.9 net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +12.8
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 35.3m -18.9
Impact +18.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 27.1m
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Maintained his highly efficient interior finishing but lacked the necessary volume to impose his will on the paint. A slight dip in defensive anchoring allowed opponents to exploit the middle, dragging his overall impact slightly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 27.1m -14.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A lack of defensive resistance (+0.3) and minimal hustle plays severely limited his effectiveness on the wing. While his interior looks were efficient, his inability to stretch the floor or disrupt opponents drove a steep -7.6 overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 25.4m -13.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 20.8m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Saw his usual offensive involvement plummet, taking away the vertical spacing he typically provides. Without that rim pressure, his moderate defensive contributions weren't enough to keep his net impact above water.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 20.8m -11.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 16.0m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Faded into the background offensively, attempting too few shots to provide his usual spacing value. The passive approach combined with negligible defensive impact to produce a negative stint off the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 16.0m -8.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 11.7m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made the most of a brief rotation spot by taking only high-percentage looks. Provided just enough connective tissue on both ends to scrape out a marginally positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 11.7m -6.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 43.0m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite solid hustle metrics (+5.4) and capable floor spacing, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-2.8) due to hidden costs like defensive rotations or live-ball turnovers. The perimeter volume was there, but he struggled to translate those heavy minutes into a net-positive team advantage.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.0m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 43.0m -22.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nikola Jokić 43.0m
24
pts
16
reb
14
ast
Impact
+16.7

Dominated the game's flow through sheer defensive positioning (+16.1) and elite offensive orchestration. His ability to control the glass and generate high-value looks for teammates resulted in a staggering +16.7 net impact that dictated the entire matchup.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 22.3%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.0m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +16.1
Raw total +39.5
Avg player in 43.0m -22.8
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jamal Murray 36.0m
5
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-19.8

A catastrophic shooting slump completely tanked his value, resulting in a brutal -19.8 net rating. The massive drop-off from his usual elite scoring production created empty possessions that his moderate defensive effort couldn't begin to offset.

Shooting
FG 1/14 (7.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 16.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense -6.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 36.0m -19.2
Impact -19.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Gordon 34.8m
27
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

An unexpected perimeter explosion fueled a massive offensive surge, doubling his usual scoring output to anchor the frontcourt. His defensive versatility (+5.6) paired perfectly with this aggressive shot-making to drive a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 34.8m -18.5
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Christian Braun 33.2m
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Efficient finishing around the rim couldn't salvage a negative overall rating (-4.0) driven by off-ball lapses. He provided decent energy on the margins, but likely gave back value through poor spacing or defensive breakdowns in transition.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 33.2m -17.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Capitalized on a hot perimeter streak to nearly double his typical scoring average and stretch the opposing defense. This aggressive shot selection paid off, combining with surprisingly stout defensive metrics to yield a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 28.6m -15.2
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Flashed some opportunistic scoring above his usual baseline, but struggled to hold up on the defensive end (+0.2). The lack of resistance on the perimeter ultimately dragged his overall net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.4m -12.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 19.7m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Continued a highly efficient offensive streak by punishing defensive rotations with timely cuts. His stout point-of-attack defense (+5.7) maximized his limited minutes, driving a stellar +7.4 overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 19.7m -10.4
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Barely saw the floor in a highly limited stint that prevented him from establishing any interior rhythm. The abbreviated run resulted in a negative impact score, reflecting an inability to influence the game's physical tone.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -126.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 3.2m -1.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2