Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ORL lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
ORL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 12/30 -2.9
Reaves 10/20 +1.2
James 5/13 -4.0
Kennard 5/7 +5.3
LaRavia 0/5 -6.2
Ayton Open 3/4 +0.9
Hayes Open 3/3 +1.8
Smart Hard 0/3 -2.9
Hachimura Open 1/2 -0.2

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Bane Hard 4/14 -5.3
Banchero 4/14 -7.9
Carter Hard 5/13 -0.1
Cain Hard 4/10 -1.6
Suggs Hard 5/9 +3.0
Carter Jr. 5/8 +2.8
da Silva Hard 4/6 +3.9
Bitadze Open 3/3 +2.3
Howard Hard 1/3 +0.4
Penda Open 1/3 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
ORL
39/87 Field Goals 36/83
44.8% Field Goal % 43.4%
8/32 3-Pointers 11/37
25.0% 3-Point % 29.7%
19/29 Free Throws 21/23
65.5% Free Throw % 91.3%
52.6% True Shooting % 55.8%
54 Total Rebounds 55
14 Offensive 12
29 Defensive 30
19 Assists 27
1.58 Assist/TO Ratio 1.50
12 Turnovers 16
11 Steals 9
6 Blocks 2
20 Fouls 27
52 Points in Paint 36
19 Fast Break Pts 11
22 Points off TOs 18
19 Second Chance Pts 21
23 Bench Points 37
14 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Luka Dončić
33 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 38.2 MIN
+22.25
2
Austin Reaves
26 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 40.1 MIN
+20.8
3
Paolo Banchero
16 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 36.0 MIN
+14.02
4
Wendell Carter Jr.
13 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 29.1 MIN
+13.63
5
LeBron James
12 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 34.4 MIN
+13.55
6
Goga Bitadze
9 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 18.1 MIN
+10.52
7
Deandre Ayton
9 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 28.8 MIN
+10.45
8
Luke Kennard
13 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 20.0 MIN
+9.76
9
Jaxson Hayes
8 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 18.6 MIN
+9.23
10
Jalen Suggs
14 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 34.3 MIN
+7.85
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 105–104
Q4 0:00 ORL Heave 105–104
Q4 0:01 L. Kennard 24' 3PT (13 PTS) (M. Smart 1 AST) 105–104
Q4 0:02 TEAM offensive REBOUND 102–104
Q4 0:02 P. Banchero BLOCK (1 BLK) 102–104
Q4 0:02 MISS L. James cutting Layup - blocked 102–104
Q4 0:04 J. Suggs bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 102–104
Q4 0:05 W. Carter Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 102–104
Q4 0:05 MISS D. Ayton Free Throw 2 of 2 102–104
Q4 0:05 D. Ayton Free Throw 1 of 2 (9 PTS) 102–104
Q4 0:05 T. da Silva personal FOUL (5 PF) (Ayton 2 FT) 101–104
Q4 0:05 D. Ayton REBOUND (Off:6 Def:6) 101–104
Q4 0:09 MISS A. Reaves 26' 3PT 101–104
Q4 0:15 L. James REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 101–104
Q4 0:18 MISS D. Bane 22' step back Shot 101–104

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

ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 38.1m
12
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.0

A catastrophic offensive showing where forced, heavily contested jumpers completely derailed the team's half-court flow. Despite putting forth an elite point-of-attack defensive effort (+9.1 Def), his inability to generate clean looks dragged the entire unit down. The staggering negative impact stems directly from momentum-killing missed shots and poor offensive decision-making.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S Paolo Banchero 36.0m
16
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.2

Brutal shot selection and forced isolation attempts were completely bailed out by his phenomenal defensive engagement (+8.9 Def). He dominated the glass and generated multiple extra possessions through sheer physicality (+5.0 Hustle) when his jumper abandoned him. This was a quintessential gritty performance where effort plays masked a broken offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 34.3m
14
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

Careless ball security and ill-advised transition passes severely undercut an otherwise efficient scoring night. While he provided his usual chaotic energy (+3.0 Hustle), a string of live-ball turnovers directly fueled opponent scoring runs. His positive individual production was ultimately overshadowed by the costly mistakes that disrupted the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.2

Anchored the paint with superb verticality (+4.9 Def) and punished smaller defenders with decisive rolls to the rim. His highly efficient finishing (+12.8 Box) provided a reliable safety valve whenever the perimeter offense stagnated. A beautifully disciplined two-way performance defined by taking exactly what the defense conceded.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Highly efficient offensive execution was entirely undone by poor lateral quickness on the defensive perimeter. Opposing guards relentlessly hunted him in isolation during the second quarter, leading to a negative defensive rating (-2.9) that erased his scoring contributions. He must improve his screen navigation to stay on the floor during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 22.8m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Settled for too many contested midrange jumpers early in the shot clock, which stalled the offense and allowed the defense to set up. Despite decent raw production (+6.9 Box), his lack of off-ball movement made the spacing feel cramped. The negative net impact reflects a player who operated outside the flow of the offensive system.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 20.6m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Excessive chucking from beyond the arc actively shot the team out of several promising offensive stretches. While his trademark on-ball pressure (+2.1 Def) caused some disruption, the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his defensive value. His shot selection was the primary culprit for his slightly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 18.1m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

Capitalized on every single offensive opportunity with decisive, hard rolls to the basket that shattered the opponent's drop coverage. His massive box score impact (+13.5) was driven by flawless shot selection and an aggressive approach to the offensive glass. Even with slight defensive lapses, his sheer efficiency made him a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +8.9
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Penda 12.8m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently arriving late on defensive rotations (-0.9 Def). His inability to process reads quickly led to stagnant offensive possessions and costly transition opportunities for the opponent. A brutal rotational stint where he was actively targeted by the opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +69.2
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief rotational cameo, looking hesitant against aggressive closeouts. A lack of defensive awareness on backdoor cuts slightly tipped his overall impact into the negative. He simply couldn't generate enough perimeter gravity to justify an extended run.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +34.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 40.1m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.2

Relentless rim pressure and foul-drawing completely dictated the tempo of the half-court offense. His massive offensive production (+17.4 Box) was slightly muted by defensive miscommunications on perimeter switches late in the shot clock. Regardless, his ability to consistently break down his primary defender in isolation was the engine of the attack.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +3.6
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Luka Dončić 38.2m
33
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+24.4

Surprisingly, it was suffocating point-of-attack defense (+10.5 Def) rather than scoring efficiency that drove his elite net impact. He forced multiple live-ball turnovers in the fourth quarter to make up for a highly erratic perimeter shooting night. The sheer volume of his offensive usage masked the fact that his defensive effort actually won his minutes.

Shooting
FG 12/30 (40.0%)
3PT 3/13 (23.1%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 40.9%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +18.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +7.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 4
S LeBron James 34.4m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.0

Elite weak-side defensive rotations (+8.9 Def) salvaged an otherwise sluggish offensive outing where his perimeter jumper refused to fall. He compensated for the inefficient shot selection by generating crucial deflections during a pivotal third-quarter run. The veteran's overall impact remained positive purely through high-IQ positional defense and hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 30.8m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.8

A complete offensive zero whose inability to space the floor allowed defenders to freely double-team the post. Despite generating typical chaos with diving loose-ball recoveries (+4.4 Hustle), his stagnant offensive presence severely dragged down the team's net rating. The defensive intensity simply couldn't offset the massive spacing penalty he incurred.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 28.9m
9
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.3

Passivity in the pick-and-roll erased the value of his highly efficient touch around the rim. While his raw production looked solid (+10.6 Box), a failure to contest shots effectively in drop coverage neutralized his overall impact. He settled into a low-motor rhythm in the second half that prevented him from dominating a favorable frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +6.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +15.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luke Kennard 20.0m
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Elite floor spacing and quick-trigger perimeter shooting punished defensive rotations all night. However, opponents aggressively targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding back much of the value he created on the offensive end. His gravity as a shooter was undeniable, but his defensive limitations capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 18.6m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Flawless shot selection and explosive vertical spacing created a highly efficient stint off the bench. He anchored the second unit with disciplined drop coverage (+5.7 Def), consistently altering floaters in the paint without fouling. His ability to execute his specific rim-running role without forcing touches resulted in a stellar net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to establish any deep post position against smaller wings. While he provided decent weak-side rim protection (+3.3 Def), his absolute lack of offensive aggression allowed the defense to ignore him. This passive stretch ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jake LaRavia 13.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.4

A disastrous offensive stint defined by rushed, out-of-rhythm perimeter attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities. He failed to leverage his size on closeouts, getting blown by repeatedly on the defensive end. The combination of bricked open looks and defensive bleeding resulted in a severely damaging shift.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring -3.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0