Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 175 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 15/30 +5.5
James Open 9/17 -2.6
Reaves Hard 7/16 +1.0
Hayes Open 9/11 +3.1
Kennard Hard 2/4 +2.5
James 2/4 +0.1
LaRavia Open 3/3 +1.8
Vanderbilt Hard 2/2 +3.1
Kleber Open 1/2 -0.6

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam Open 7/15 -4.1
Nesmith Hard 6/13 0.0
McConnell 8/10 +5.6
Huff 7/10 +5.1
Toppin 7/10 +3.9
Walker Hard 5/9 +5.6
Nembhard Hard 3/9 +0.5
Sheppard Hard 4/6 +5.7
Brown Hard 0/2 -1.4
Potter Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
IND
50/89 Field Goals 48/86
56.2% Field Goal % 55.8%
9/23 3-Pointers 16/39
39.1% 3-Point % 41.0%
28/34 Free Throws 18/23
82.4% Free Throw % 78.3%
65.9% True Shooting % 67.6%
52 Total Rebounds 37
7 Offensive 5
32 Defensive 29
30 Assists 35
2.14 Assist/TO Ratio 1.94
13 Turnovers 18
15 Steals 7
4 Blocks 2
22 Fouls 25
70 Points in Paint 54
22 Fast Break Pts 23
29 Points off TOs 23
11 Second Chance Pts 8
19 Bench Points 49
29 Largest Lead 0
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaxson Hayes
21 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 36.3 MIN
+27.51
2
Luka Dončić
43 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 37.5 MIN
+24.67
3
LeBron James
23 PTS · 9 REB · 9 AST · 34.5 MIN
+24.4
4
T.J. McConnell
17 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 14.4 MIN
+20.73
5
Austin Reaves
25 PTS · 1 REB · 8 AST · 38.0 MIN
+20.24
6
Jay Huff
18 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 31.6 MIN
+16.84
7
Obi Toppin
15 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 19.9 MIN
+15.42
8
Ben Sheppard
13 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 17.5 MIN
+14.92
9
Andrew Nembhard
14 PTS · 2 REB · 19 AST · 33.6 MIN
+12.14
10
Jake LaRavia
6 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 28.6 MIN
+10.96
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 O. Toppin 27' 3PT (15 PTS) (A. Nembhard 19 AST) 137–130
Q4 0:05 J. LaRavia DUNK (6 PTS) (L. James 9 AST) 137–127
Q4 0:13 L. Dončić REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 135–127
Q4 0:16 MISS A. Nembhard 28' pullup 3PT 135–127
Q4 0:20 L. Dončić Free Throw 2 of 2 (43 PTS) 135–127
Q4 0:20 L. Dončić Free Throw 1 of 2 (42 PTS) 134–127
Q4 0:20 B. Sheppard take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Dončić 2 FT) 133–127
Q4 0:21 J. Walker kicked ball VIOLATION 133–127
Q4 0:27 J. Walker 32' 3PT (15 PTS) (A. Nembhard 18 AST) 133–127
Q4 0:32 L. James Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 133–124
Q4 0:32 L. James Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 132–124
Q4 0:32 J. Huff shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (James 2 FT) 131–124
Q4 0:45 J. Huff tip DUNK (18 PTS) 131–124
Q4 0:45 J. Huff REBOUND (Off:1 Def:5) 131–122
Q4 0:46 MISS A. Nesmith running 3PT 131–122

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

IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 33.6m
14
pts
2
reb
19
ast
Impact
-1.8

An extraordinary playmaking display was entirely undercut by defensive liabilities and poor scoring efficiency. He masterfully manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to spoon-feed his bigs, but opponents mercilessly targeted his lack of lateral quickness on the other end. Missed assignments at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that collapsed the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +4.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 32.1m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc severely damaged the team's spacing and offensive rhythm. Defenders aggressively sagged off him, effectively clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. Despite commendable effort tracking loose balls, his inability to punish the defense from deep resulted in a team-worst net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jay Huff 31.6m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Excellent shot selection and timely rim-runs fueled a highly efficient offensive showing that anchored his positive impact. He consistently beat his primary defender down the floor to establish deep post position. Defensively, his verticality at the rim deterred multiple driving attempts during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 29.8m
20
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

A heavy diet of contested mid-range isolations dragged down his efficiency and stalled the team's offensive flow. While he found some success scoring in isolation, his tunnel vision resulted in stagnant ball movement and missed reads to open shooters. Opponents capitalized on these empty possessions to spark transition runs, sinking his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jarace Walker 29.6m
15
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Sizzling perimeter shooting masked severe defensive breakdowns that ultimately cratered his net impact. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and struggled to navigate off-ball screens. The steady stream of easy layups surrendered completely negated his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Obi Toppin 19.9m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Surprisingly stout defensive rotations and hyper-efficient finishing at the rim drove a highly productive shift off the bench. He leaked out perfectly in transition, punishing the opponent's poor floor balance for easy dunks. His ability to switch onto smaller wings without conceding fouls was the defining element of his performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Ben Sheppard 17.5m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Lethal perimeter marksmanship completely tilted the floor, as he punished defensive drop coverages with devastating accuracy from deep. His constant off-ball motion forced defensive miscommunications that created wide-open looks. This floor-spacing gravity was the primary driver behind his robust net impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 16.1m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him a near non-factor, as he attempted just a single shot during his time on the floor. While he provided solid energy on the margins, his reluctance to look at the basket allowed defenders to double-team the primary ball handlers. He functioned merely as a placeholder in the offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.3

Relentless rim pressure and surgical mid-range execution dismantled the opposing second unit in a spectacular, high-usage burst. He relentlessly probed the paint, collapsing the defense and finishing through contact at an elite clip. His aggressive point-of-attack defense further disrupted the opponent's timing, fueling a massive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Brown 8.4m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-21.6

Rushed shot selection and a failure to secure loose balls led to a disastrous impact in just eight minutes of action. He forced heavily contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock, gifting the opponent long rebounds and easy transition opportunities. The game simply moved too fast for him during this disjointed stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.0

A completely invisible offensive stint left him with a negative net impact during his brief rotation minutes. He failed to assert himself within the flow of the offense, passing up driving lanes and stalling the ball. His lack of aggression allowed the defense to comfortably rest while he was on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -87.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 38.0m
25
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.9

A heavy playmaking burden yielded a strong box score impact, but inefficient perimeter shooting capped his overall ceiling. He forced several contested looks late in the shot clock, dragging down his offensive efficiency. However, his persistent off-ball movement kept the defensive rotations honest.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +18.5
Creation +4.5
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luka Dončić 37.5m
43
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+27.8

Massive offensive volume generated a towering box score metric, but a staggering number of missed field goals significantly dampened his actual net positive. The sheer gravity he commanded forced constant double-teams, opening up passing lanes that he expertly exploited. Still, settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers late in the fourth quarter limited his overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 15/30 (50.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 40.2%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +32.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +9.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaxson Hayes 36.3m
21
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+22.9

Hyper-efficient finishing around the rim propelled a massive overall impact as he capitalized on every roll to the basket. Beyond the scoring surge, his rim protection and relentless activity on the glass suffocated the opponent's interior attack. He routinely beat opposing bigs down the floor to establish deep post position.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +18.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +9.8
Defense +4.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S LeBron James 34.5m
23
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+26.6

Elite playmaking and a noticeable surge in scoring volume fueled a massive positive box score impact. He generated high-quality looks for teammates while maintaining defensive discipline against primary assignments. His ability to dictate the tempo in the half-court completely neutralized the opponent's transition game.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +16.9
Creation +7.3
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 28.6m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Exceptional defensive (+11.5) and hustle (+6.2) metrics drove his positive impact despite low offensive usage. He didn't waste a single possession, converting all his attempts while focusing entirely on off-ball activity. His switchability on the perimeter anchored several crucial defensive stands for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +6.3
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
Luke Kennard 28.0m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Extreme passivity on offense severely limited his value, as passing up open looks stalled the team's half-court rhythm. While he hit the few shots he took, his inability to stay in front of quicker guards made him a target in pick-and-roll coverage. Opponents repeatedly hunted him on switches during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bronny James 13.4m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Active hands and solid point-of-attack pressure kept his overall rating hovering near neutral despite a quiet offensive stint. He struggled to create separation off the dribble, leading to stalled possessions when forced to initiate. His best moments came from blowing up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Flawless shot execution in limited minutes provided a brief offensive spark, though his overall footprint remained muted. He provided steady, mistake-free minutes as a rotational bridge without forcing the issue. His primary contribution came through disciplined closeouts that prevented corner three-point attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -25.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 11.4m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Strong positional awareness yielded a positive defensive impact, but his absolute lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. He operated strictly as a spacing decoy who was largely ignored by the opposition. A failure to capitalize on pick-and-pop opportunities ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1