GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Jake LaRavia 38.1m
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Relentless energy on cuts and closeouts was heavily suppressed by a pattern of unseen mistakes, likely bad fouls and poor spacing. The sheer volume of his hustle plays barely kept his head above water. Despite the aggressive motor, sloppy execution limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 38.1m -20.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Austin Reaves 36.8m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.7

Shooting through a brutal slump from beyond the arc actively hurt the team's half-court efficiency. While he competed hard defensively, forcing bad looks derailed the offensive rhythm. This poor shot selection was the primary driver of his heavily negative score.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.4
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 36.8m -19.8
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Luka Dončić 34.0m
42
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
+25.7

Elite manipulation of the pick-and-roll dictated the entire flow of the game, easily overwhelming his high turnover count. He orchestrated a masterclass in offensive creation, tearing apart defensive schemes with unparalleled vision. The sheer volume of his positive contributions made him unstoppable.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 39.2%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +37.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.9
Raw total +44.0
Avg player in 34.0m -18.3
Impact +25.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S LeBron James 30.6m
14
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.3

Trying to thread the needle with sloppy passes sparked opponent transition runs and dragged his impact into the negative. While his defensive metrics and playmaking were solid, live-ball giveaways completely overshadowed his scoring. The careless ball security was the defining flaw of his performance.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 30.6m -16.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 28.1m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.1

Sealing off defenders early in the clock created easy scoring opportunities and drove his massive positive impact. He imposed his will in the paint through sheer efficiency and excellent positional rebounding. Altering numerous shots at the rim further cemented his dominance.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +23.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 28.1m -15.3
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Kennard 22.8m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.1

Passing up open looks neutralized his floor-spacing gravity, while opponents actively hunted him on switches. His passive offensive approach combined with glaring defensive vulnerabilities made him a clear liability. The refusal to pull the trigger completely broke the team's offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 22.8m -12.4
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

Aggressive straight-line drives against scrambling defenses kept the offense flowing perfectly. He provided a crucial scoring punch by attacking closeouts and finishing decisively around the basket. Thriving by playing within himself, he avoided the costly mistakes that drag down impact scores.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 18.9m -10.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 18.6m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Disciplined verticality at the rim defined a highly effective stint where he perfectly played his role. He stayed within his limitations offensively, ensuring his touches didn't result in negative plays. This focused, mistake-free approach maximized his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 18.6m -10.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Getting easily blown past on the perimeter exposed his lack of readiness and drove his negative impact. He looked completely overwhelmed by the speed of the game, failing to register any positive actions. The total lack of offensive assertiveness compounded his defensive missteps.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 6.9m -3.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Logging a brief, uneventful garbage-time cameo yielded no meaningful actions. He managed to stay out of the way without committing any glaring errors. The extremely limited sample size kept his impact negligible.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -250.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
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
-0.7

Making a purely procedural appearance at the end of the bench resulted in zero impact. He logged just over a minute of garbage time without recording any stats. This fleeting stint was entirely inconsequential.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -250.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 1.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Chipping in a tiny bit of hustle defined his fleeting end-of-game appearance. He left no real footprint on the contest otherwise. The sample size was simply too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -250.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Rushing a poor shot during a micro-stint dragged his limited minutes into the negative. That single empty possession was enough to sink his impact score. He failed to capitalize on his brief opportunity.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -250.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 27.7m
17
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.3

Defensive apathy at the point of attack defined his night, allowing opposing guards to blow by him repeatedly. His scoring output was completely negated by a high volume of careless passes and a lack of transition hustle. The team essentially operated 4-on-5 whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 27.7m -14.8
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.1

Settling for heavily contested pull-up jumpers tanked his overall effectiveness. Forcing low-quality looks instead of attacking the rim resulted in empty trips that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The negative value stems directly from this poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 24.2m -13.0
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Max Strus 23.2m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

A pattern of costly live-ball turnovers completely erased the value of his efficient shooting. Poor defensive positioning on the perimeter further compounded the damage, allowing easy blow-bys. He ultimately gave back far more points than he generated.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 23.2m -12.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Evan Mobley 21.5m
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Inability to establish deep post position defined this negative stint, leading to forced actions and empty possessions. The lack of physical assertiveness allowed opponents to dictate the terms of engagement. His offensive rhythm vanished entirely as he struggled to find his spots.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 21.5m -11.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 18.6m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Physical screen-setting created massive driving lanes for the guards, defining his dominant interior performance. He served as a highly reliable lob threat while anchoring the paint with disciplined rim protection. A truly stabilizing presence who maximized every possession.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 18.6m -10.0
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.1

Exploiting drop coverage for high-efficiency looks defined his massive positive impact. He punished favorable matchups inside while surprisingly deterring multiple drives at the rim on the other end. Capitalizing on defensive mistakes allowed him to generate immense value.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 24.6m -13.3
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Biting on pump fakes and taking poor closeout angles erased the value of his offensive flashes. Defensive inexperience was the defining trait of his performance, as he repeatedly compromised the team's rotation. A classic case of a young player trying to do too much and making costly mistakes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 22.3m -12.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 19.4m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Relentless point-of-attack defense brought fantastic energy, but his total lack of offensive gravity bogged down the half-court sets. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which cramped spacing for the primary creators. The defensive hustle simply couldn't overcome his offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 19.4m -10.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Dribbling the air out of the ball led to late-clock grenades and completely stalled the offense. While he provided solid defensive pressure, his erratic playmaking wasted far too many possessions. The negative score reflects his inability to organize the half-court sets effectively.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 18.9m -10.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.7

Failing to generate any offensive gravity left his team playing 4-on-5 during his minutes. His inability to protect the ball or create advantages allowed the defense to aggressively trap his teammates. This total invisibility made him a clear liability while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 15.5m -8.5
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite weak-side rotations blew up multiple opponent sets, anchoring the second unit's defense. He didn't need to score to be highly effective, utilizing high-IQ hustle plays and relentless glass-cleaning to tilt the game. His positioning alone deterred numerous rim attempts.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +59.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 12.0m -6.5
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Clean, mistake-free decision-making within the flow of the offense provided a steadying presence. Thriving by simply taking what the defense gave him, he avoided forcing the issue or committing costly turnovers. This disciplined approach maximized his limited minutes perfectly.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +59.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 12.0m -6.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0