GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 40.9m
35
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.3

Sheer offensive volume generated a staggering box score metric, but his overall impact was dragged down to near-neutral by defensive lapses and ball-security issues. The spectacular shot-making masked how often the opponent capitalized on his slow transition defense, particularly when he complained to officials instead of getting back.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 40.9m -23.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Austin Reaves 39.8m
15
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-13.6

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock against set defenses completely torpedoed his overall value. The sheer volume of wasted possessions (-13.6 total impact) outweighed his playmaking efforts, turning him into a massive net negative during his extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 39.8m -23.0
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S LeBron James 36.4m
19
pts
15
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.7

Hidden negatives like live-ball turnovers and forced perimeter shots completely stalled the offensive momentum, offsetting his massive usage. While his weak-side rim protection (+8.5 Def) remained elite, the empty possessions in the half-court prevented his overall impact from matching his towering production.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +8.5
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 36.4m -21.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 30.8m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Severe lack of involvement tanked his overall value (-8.0), despite him converting his few attempts efficiently. He floated on the perimeter without demanding the ball, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and crowd the paint during half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 30.8m -17.7
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 25.6m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Dominant interior finishing continued to be his calling card, punishing smaller defenders on the block to drive a strong positive impact. His relentless activity on the offensive glass (+3.5 hustle) generated crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 25.6m -14.9
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Marcus Smart 28.2m
26
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

He punished drop coverage with a barrage of pull-up triples, catching absolute fire from beyond the arc. This perimeter explosion drove a massive box score impact, completely altering the geometry of the defense and opening up driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 8/14 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 28.2m -16.3
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 14.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Floating through over a quarter of action without registering a single positive play resulted in a completely invisible performance. His inability to stay in front of his man defensively (-1.3) compounded the damage of his empty offensive possessions, leading to a disastrous overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.3
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 14.3m -8.3
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 11.6m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

His offensive role evaporated compared to recent games, as he managed just a single field goal attempt in limited minutes. While his defensive positioning remained solid (+1.7), the lack of rim-running gravity muted his overall effectiveness in the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 11.6m -6.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Unable to make an imprint offensively, he missed his perimeter looks and struggled to find open space. Despite some solid defensive rotations (+2.6), his inability to space the floor rendered him a net negative during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -119.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 8.8m -5.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Restricted to the final minute of the game, he recorded no counting stats. He provided a tiny defensive bump during his brief garbage-time cameo by staying in front of his assignment.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Making the most of his brief garbage-time appearance, he instantly drilled a perimeter jumper. This single sequence of decisive shot-making resulted in a quick positive impact boost before the horn sounded.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

He used his minute of mop-up duty to showcase high-energy defense (+2.3) and hustle. Even in a meaningless stretch, his willingness to compete defensively yielded a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Luke Kornet 33.0m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the rim, punishing defensive rotations with timely baseline cuts. His defensive positioning (+5.7) and activity on the glass provided a steadying presence that anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 33.0m -19.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 53.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 32.5m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite a massive scoring surge compared to his recent average, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to defensive limitations. The perimeter shot-making was a bright spot, but he gave back too much ground on the other end of the floor during critical isolation matchups.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 32.5m -18.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 31.5m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.6

Two-way excellence defined this outing, combining a sharp uptick in scoring aggression with suffocating point-of-attack defense (+8.9). He consistently turned defensive stops into transition opportunities, leveraging his speed to break down the opponent's retreating shell.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 31.5m -18.2
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Devin Vassell 30.8m
8
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.6

Forced jumpers and a severe perimeter shooting slump dragged down his offensive value to crater his overall impact. However, his elite defensive metrics (+9.8) kept him from being a complete liability, defined by his consistent disruption of passing lanes to salvage some utility.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +9.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 30.8m -17.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Stephon Castle 26.6m
30
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.2

A dominant offensive showing fueled a massive box score metric, as he relentlessly attacked mismatches to generate high-quality looks. His aggressive downhill drives forced the defense into constant rotation, dictating the tempo of the game from start to finish.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 83.5%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 26.6m -15.3
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns with excellent shot selection, generating a stellar box score impact. His constant off-ball movement and willingness to make the extra hustle play (+3.0) kept the offensive flow completely frictionless.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 28.7m -16.5
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

Leveraging his frame to create space in the paint against smaller wings allowed him to power a strong positive impact through sheer physical force. His defensive activity perfectly complemented his highly efficient shot selection, resulting in a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 22.2m -12.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 20.2m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Continued his streak of efficient shooting, but his overall value was derailed by poor defensive execution. Opponents frequently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, neutralizing the positive momentum generated by his offensive touch.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 20.2m -11.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kelly Olynyk 12.2m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

Struggled to find any rhythm in limited action, failing to connect from the field and lacking his usual playmaking punch. The inability to stretch the floor or generate secondary offense from the high post left his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 12.2m -7.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Logged barely a minute of garbage-time action, registering negligible statistical impact. A brief defensive rotation yielded a slight positive bump to his underlying metrics before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact +0.2
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
-0.4

Saw only mop-up duty at the end of the contest, failing to record any meaningful statistics. His brief stint on the floor resulted in a fractional negative impact due to the disjointed nature of the closing lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.1m -0.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0