GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S A. Reaves 40.1m
26
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless off-ball movement and lethal perimeter execution tore the opposing defense apart. He consistently punished late rotations with quick-trigger jumpers and generated extra possessions through high-motor hustle plays in the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +33.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +6.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 40.1m -20.0
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S L. Dončić 38.7m
41
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.5

Total offensive mastery and surgical pick-and-roll manipulation drove an astronomical impact score. He systematically dismantled the drop coverage by hitting step-back jumpers, while surprisingly active hands on defense generated transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 15/25 (60.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +27.2
Hustle +7.1
Defense +10.5
Raw total +44.8
Avg player in 38.7m -19.3
Impact +25.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 5
S L. James 37.5m
14
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.5

Despite generating solid defensive metrics through weak-side help, his overall rating slipped into the negative due to stagnant offensive possessions. He settled for contested looks late in the clock rather than attacking downhill, allowing the defense to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 49.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 37.5m -18.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S D. Ayton 21.9m
9
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

Flawless shot selection and dominant interior positioning fueled a highly efficient performance. He anchored the paint masterfully, altering multiple shots at the rim and securing crucial defensive boards to end opponent possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 21.9m -10.9
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S J. LaRavia 17.9m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his value during his stint on the floor. Failing to pressure the rim or connect from deep, his lack of gravity allowed defenders to aggressively double-team the primary ball handlers without consequence.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 17.9m -8.9
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
R. Hachimura 26.1m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Physical on-ball defense provided a solid baseline, but his tendency to halt ball movement on offense dragged his net rating down slightly. He missed several critical rotations in transition, giving up easy fast-break buckets that negated his half-court efforts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 26.1m -13.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
J. Hayes 26.1m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite vertical spacing and aggressive rim protection maximized his value in a limited offensive role. He deterred multiple drives as a weak-side helper and created second-chance opportunities by relentlessly crashing the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.6
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 26.1m -13.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 1
L. Kennard 17.3m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Smart positional defense and timely spacing kept his impact marginally positive despite a quiet offensive night. He served as an effective decoy on the perimeter, drawing defenders away from the paint to facilitate driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +4.9
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 17.3m -8.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

An inability to contribute offensively allowed the opposition to completely ignore him and crowd the strong side of the floor. Without his usual disruptive defensive playmaking to compensate, his presence bogged down the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 10.0m -4.9
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
B. James 4.4m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Maximized a brief rotational stint by immediately capitalizing on a spot-up opportunity and maintaining defensive discipline. His high-energy closeouts prevented clean looks during a crucial late-game stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -62.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 4.4m -2.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S N. Traore 25.6m
9
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.4

High-level point-of-attack defense and excellent passing vision were completely undone by a disastrous shooting performance. Opponents dared him to shoot by going under screens, and his inability to punish those coverages stalled out multiple half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 32.1%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense -7.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 25.6m -12.7
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 6
S Z. Williams 25.2m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Defensive activity anchored his overall positive impact, highlighted by timely deflections that disrupted the opponent's rhythm. Even with a streaky shooting night, his relentless closeouts on the perimeter ensured he remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 25.2m -12.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S N. Clowney 23.9m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Offensive struggles severely weighed down his overall value, as forced shots late in the shot clock resulted in empty possessions. While he provided minor resistance at the rim, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to sag and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 23.9m -12.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S N. Claxton 23.1m
16
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.9

Elite rim-running and hyper-efficient finishing around the basket generated massive offensive value. He consistently exploited pick-and-roll mismatches, punishing smaller switches while maintaining solid positional defense in the paint to anchor the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 23.1m -11.5
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S D. Powell 21.9m
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

A lack of overall aggression and a minimal defensive footprint kept his impact firmly in the red. He floated on the perimeter for long stretches without pressuring the defense, failing to capitalize on rotation mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 21.9m -11.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
J. Minott 26.0m
18
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Spacing the floor with confident perimeter shooting drove his positive value, forcing closeouts that opened up driving lanes for teammates. He capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities during a crucial second-half run, though occasional defensive lapses kept his overall rating from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 26.0m -13.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
B. Saraf 22.4m
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Inefficient finishing in traffic and a failure to draw contact negated the volume of his offensive touches. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, leading to defensive breakdowns that eroded his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 22.4m -11.1
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
T. Mann 21.8m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Solid rotational defense and active hands in the passing lanes kept his impact near neutral despite a low-usage offensive role. He deferred too often when presented with driving angles, limiting his ability to swing the momentum in a positive direction.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 21.8m -10.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
O. Agbaji 21.0m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

An inability to connect on open looks from the corners allowed the opposing defense to cheat off him and pack the paint. His lack of physical resistance on the wing further compounded the issue, making him a target during isolation sets.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 21.0m -10.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
J. Wilson 14.8m
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor shot selection heavily dragged down his rating, as he repeatedly settled for contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock. Without generating any defensive stops to offset the wasted offensive possessions, his minutes proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 14.8m -7.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
C. Johnson 14.3m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

A shockingly passive offensive approach tanked his value, as he routinely passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim. Compounding the lack of scoring was a sluggish defensive effort, where he was consistently beaten on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -52.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 14.3m -7.1
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1