Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
GSW lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
GSW 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 161 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

James 11/17 +8.3
Hachimura Hard 5/12 +0.4
Ayton 9/11 +6.7
Kennard 6/11 +1.6
LaRavia Hard 6/7 +8.3
James Hard 4/7 +2.9
Smith Jr. Hard 4/5 +7.7
Timme 2/3 +0.9
Vanderbilt 1/3 -1.4
Bufkin Hard 1/2 +0.1

GSW GSW Shot-making Δ

Podziemski Hard 7/15 +0.6
Williams 7/13 +2.6
Spencer Hard 5/12 +1.5
Curry Hard 4/9 +0.7
Bassey Open 6/8 +1.9
Leons 4/8 -0.9
Cryer Hard 3/6 +1.8
Melton Hard 1/5 -2.9
Payton II Open 4/4 +2.9
Green Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
GSW
49/80 Field Goals 41/81
61.3% Field Goal % 50.6%
16/29 3-Pointers 9/30
55.2% 3-Point % 30.0%
5/8 Free Throws 12/12
62.5% Free Throw % 100.0%
71.2% True Shooting % 59.7%
36 Total Rebounds 40
8 Offensive 15
25 Defensive 23
37 Assists 24
1.95 Assist/TO Ratio 1.26
17 Turnovers 19
14 Steals 8
3 Blocks 2
13 Fouls 6
48 Points in Paint 54
18 Fast Break Pts 8
28 Points off TOs 22
10 Second Chance Pts 18
30 Bench Points 53
27 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
LeBron James
26 PTS · 8 REB · 11 AST · 31.8 MIN
+24.97
2
Deandre Ayton
21 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 30.6 MIN
+22.72
3
Luke Kennard
14 PTS · 2 REB · 8 AST · 31.9 MIN
+21.09
4
Jake LaRavia
16 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 30.7 MIN
+20.32
5
Charles Bassey
12 PTS · 13 REB · 1 AST · 29.8 MIN
+15.84
6
Malevy Leons
12 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 24.1 MIN
+14.01
7
Gary Payton II
10 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 14.0 MIN
+13.56
8
Rui Hachimura
12 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 29.6 MIN
+12.33
9
Brandin Podziemski
17 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 24.0 MIN
+11.17
10
Nick Smith Jr.
12 PTS · 0 REB · 0 AST · 11.3 MIN
+11.13
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:08 C. Bassey 10' floating Jump Shot (12 PTS) (N. Williams 3 AST) 119–103
Q4 0:25 B. James 28' 3PT (10 PTS) (K. Bufkin 1 AST) 119–101
Q4 0:37 N. Williams 25' 3PT (17 PTS) (M. Leons 3 AST) 116–101
Q4 0:51 P. Spencer REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 116–98
Q4 0:52 MISS D. Timme 3PT 116–98
Q4 1:11 N. Williams driving Layup (14 PTS) (P. Spencer 6 AST) 116–98
Q4 1:25 M. Leons REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 116–96
Q4 1:31 C. Bassey BLOCK (2 BLK) 116–96
Q4 1:31 MISS A. Thiero 7' cutting Layup - blocked 116–96
Q4 1:42 S. Curry 3PT (11 PTS) (P. Spencer 5 AST) 116–96
Q4 1:58 D. Timme 11' floating Jump Shot (4 PTS) (B. James 3 AST) 116–93
Q4 2:10 N. Williams reverse Layup (12 PTS) (M. Leons 2 AST) 114–93
Q4 2:30 K. Bufkin 9' pullup Jump Shot (2 PTS) (D. Timme 2 AST) 114–91
Q4 2:46 M. Leons Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 112–91
Q4 2:46 M. Leons Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 112–90

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

GSW Golden State Warriors
S Pat Spencer 38.1m
12
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.0

Heavy minutes exposed his vulnerability as a primary ball-handler against aggressive trapping schemes. Despite solid individual defensive metrics, a flurry of live-ball turnovers directly fueled the opponent's transition attack. His inability to break the full-court press during the third quarter severely damaged his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nate Williams 34.5m
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Scoring efficiency masked a highly detrimental defensive performance that bled points on the perimeter. He consistently died on screens, forcing the bigs into impossible two-on-one drop scenarios. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant his offensive production was entirely offset by giving up easy driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

A high-volume scoring approach yielded a strong box score, but poor shot selection from beyond the arc flattened his actual impact. He forced several heavily contested floaters in traffic rather than kicking out to open shooters. His neutral net rating reflects an even trade-off between his aggressive rim attacks and his defensive lapses in transition.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Draymond Green 22.1m
2
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-13.2

Elite vocal leadership and sharp backline rotations generated strong defensive metrics, but his complete refusal to look at the rim crippled the half-court offense. Opposing bigs blatantly camped in the lane, cutting off all cutting angles for his teammates. A series of forced, high-risk passes trying to thread the needle resulted in costly empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Smothering point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to salvage a disastrous offensive stint characterized by rushed, out-of-rhythm jumpers. His inability to connect from deep allowed the defense to aggressively shrink the floor. He repeatedly short-circuited offensive sets by taking contested early-clock shots instead of moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.8

Dominant interior positioning and soft touch around the basket generated a highly efficient offensive showing. He anchored the paint effectively, altering multiple shots at the rim to boost his defensive metrics. His relentless work on the offensive glass consistently rewarded the team with crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +16.5
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Malevy Leons 24.1m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

High-IQ connective passing and timely weakside rim protection drove a surprisingly robust positive impact. He perfectly executed the team's switching scheme, seamlessly guarding multiple positions without requiring help. His willingness to make the extra pass kept the offensive machinery humming smoothly.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Seth Curry 23.3m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

While his perimeter gravity opened up some driving lanes, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to being targeted relentlessly on defense. Opponents isolated him in space during a crucial third-quarter stretch, easily shooting over his contests. The lack of secondary playmaking meant his minutes were purely dependent on shot-making, which ran hot and cold.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LJ Cryer 15.2m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Flashes of perimeter shot-making were entirely undone by poor navigational skills through off-ball screens. He repeatedly trailed his man on defense, forcing emergency rotations that left the weak side completely exposed. A couple of careless offensive fouls further dragged down his overall court impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Absolute havoc creation on the defensive end completely swung the momentum of the game during his short stint. He generated massive value by perfectly timing his baseline cuts to punish ball-watching defenders. His flawless finishing at the rim and relentless ball pressure resulted in a sky-high net rating per minute.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luke Kennard 31.9m
14
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.5

Operating primarily as a secondary playmaker, his quick decision-making against defensive hedges kept the offense flowing beautifully. Surprisingly, it was his point-of-attack defense that anchored his strong overall rating. He routinely funneled ball-handlers into the help defense without committing costly fouls.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +7.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S LeBron James 31.8m
26
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
+18.1

Masterful offensive orchestration drove a massive box score impact, though a handful of sloppy live-ball turnovers slightly deflated his overall net rating. He consistently manipulated the weakside corner defender during the third quarter to generate wide-open looks for shooters. His defensive engagement as a free safety remained highly disruptive.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +21.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jake LaRavia 30.7m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.4

Elite spot-up spacing and aggressive closeout attacks generated a highly efficient offensive footprint. Defensively, his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter drove a stellar impact score. He consistently beat his man to loose balls, turning 50/50 plays into extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 114.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +49.2
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense +5.1
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Deandre Ayton 30.6m
21
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.3

Relentless rim-running and elite shot selection fueled a massive spike in offensive impact. He completely neutralized the opponent's drop coverage by diving hard to the basket and finishing through contact. His vertical spacing alone warped the defensive shell all night.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Rui Hachimura 29.6m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

Despite active on-ball defense and solid hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to poor off-ball awareness that allowed multiple backdoor cuts. A noticeable dip in finishing efficiency in traffic broke his recent hot streak. He struggled to anchor the baseline rotation during the opponent's second-quarter surge.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.9

Offensive invisibility completely cratered his net impact, as defenders entirely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint. While he provided his usual rotational rim protection, the lack of scoring gravity stalled multiple possessions. He struggled to secure contested defensive rebounds during a crucial fourth-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Bronny James 20.6m
10
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

Aggressive screen navigation and active hands yielded strong defensive metrics, but his overall impact remained slightly negative due to spacing issues on the other end. Opponents sagged off him in the half-court, bogging down the team's offensive flow. A pair of costly transition fouls negated some of his hard-earned hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Instant microwave offense provided a massive jolt to the second unit's spacing. His ability to hit heavily contested catch-and-shoot looks from the wing completely altered the opponent's defensive shell. However, zero defensive or hustle contributions kept his net rating from climbing even higher.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 120.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 8.5m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

Defensive mobility issues in space dragged down his overall rating despite decent touch around the basket. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in high pick-and-roll actions, easily turning the corner. He did manage to set a few bone-crushing screens that freed up shooters momentarily.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Providing zero statistical resistance or offensive gravity, his minutes were a clear net negative. He completely lost his man on two separate baseline out-of-bounds plays, gifting the opposition free layups. The lack of hustle metrics reflects a passive approach during his short rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -108.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

A brief, unimpactful stint was marred by slow closeouts that allowed easy rhythm jumpers. He failed to establish deep post positioning on offense, resulting in empty trips down the floor. His inability to contain the pick-and-roll drop coverage quickly forced him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -83.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Managed to keep the offense organized during a very brief stint on the floor. A quick blow-by drive demonstrated some burst, but he was caught ball-watching on defense once. Ultimately, his court time was too limited to move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
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
-1.8

Struggled to find the flow of the game during a disjointed substitution pattern. His negative impact stemmed entirely from defensive miscommunications in transition rather than half-court errors. He failed to register a single shot attempt as the offensive sets bypassed him completely.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0