Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
PHX lead LAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAL 2P — 3P —
PHX 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 170 attempts

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

Dončić Hard 7/25 -6.0
James 8/17 -2.6
Ayton 10/11 +8.0
LaRavia 2/9 -7.2
Smart Hard 2/7 -2.6
Vincent Hard 2/5 +0.2
Vanderbilt 2/5 -1.2
Hachimura Hard 1/5 -2.0
Hayes Open 4/4 +2.4

PHX PHX Shot-making Δ

Booker Hard 7/17 -1.6
Allen 4/11 -2.5
Williams Open 9/10 +4.0
Brooks Hard 6/9 +7.3
Gillespie Hard 4/9 +2.0
O'Neale Hard 4/7 +5.7
Goodwin 2/7 -3.1
Dunn 2/6 -2.0
Ighodaro Open 1/4 -2.5
Bouyea 1/2 -0.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
PHX
38/88 Field Goals 40/82
43.2% Field Goal % 48.8%
7/37 3-Pointers 13/37
18.9% 3-Point % 35.1%
33/43 Free Throws 21/25
76.7% Free Throw % 84.0%
54.2% True Shooting % 61.3%
64 Total Rebounds 43
24 Offensive 10
30 Defensive 27
20 Assists 29
0.91 Assist/TO Ratio 1.45
21 Turnovers 19
13 Steals 11
8 Blocks 5
23 Fouls 28
50 Points in Paint 44
12 Fast Break Pts 18
31 Points off TOs 36
25 Second Chance Pts 18
30 Bench Points 26
20 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Deandre Ayton
20 PTS · 13 REB · 0 AST · 30.1 MIN
+23.55
2
Mark Williams
20 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 28.9 MIN
+22.66
3
Devin Booker
27 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 31.4 MIN
+20.97
4
Jarred Vanderbilt
7 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 15.0 MIN
+17.19
5
Grayson Allen
13 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 35.0 MIN
+13.5
6
Jaxson Hayes
12 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 17.6 MIN
+12.94
7
Jake LaRavia
6 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 21.2 MIN
+9.34
8
Dillon Brooks
18 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 24.5 MIN
+8.38
9
Collin Gillespie
10 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 36.7 MIN
+8.02
10
Royce O'Neale
12 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 24.0 MIN
+7.53
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 R. O'Neale REBOUND (Off:0 Def:5) 116–114
Q4 0:00 MISS M. Smart Free Throw 2 of 2 116–114
Q4 0:00 M. Smart Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS) 116–114
Q4 0:00 C. Gillespie personal FOUL (4 PF) (Smart 2 FT) 115–114
Q4 0:00 M. Smart REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 115–114
Q4 0:00 L. James BLOCK (2 BLK) 115–114
Q4 0:00 MISS G. Allen 22' driving floating Shot - blocked 115–114
Q4 0:03 L. James Free Throw 3 of 3 (26 PTS) 115–114
Q4 0:03 L. James Free Throw 2 of 3 (25 PTS) 114–114
Q4 0:03 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–114
Q4 0:03 MISS L. James Free Throw 1 of 3 113–114
Q4 0:03 D. Booker shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (James 3 FT) 113–114
Q4 0:12 TEAM offensive REBOUND 113–114
Q4 0:12 MISS L. James technical Free Throw 1 of 1 113–114
Q4 0:12 Ejection D. Brooks 113–114

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

PHX Phoenix Suns
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.3

A high-energy performance yielded strong hustle metrics, but defensive lapses at the point of attack ultimately dragged his overall score into the negative. Struggling to navigate ball screens allowed opposing guards to dictate the tempo during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 11.2%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Grayson Allen 35.0m
13
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.6

Kept his head above water analytically by leaning heavily into perimeter defense and off-ball hustle. The defensive metrics effectively neutralized the damage from a cold shooting night where he struggled to find space against aggressive closeouts.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +4.3
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Booker 31.4m
27
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.0

Overcame a completely barren night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking the paint and drawing defensive rotations. His ability to collapse the defense and generate high-quality looks for others ensured a strong positive rating despite the personal shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 13/16 (81.2%)
Advanced
TS% 56.2%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mark Williams 28.9m
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.3

Completely overwhelmed the interior defense with elite pick-and-roll finishing and dominant rim protection. By converting nearly every look around the basket and deterring drives on the other end, he engineered a massive two-way advantage.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 88.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Dillon Brooks 24.5m
18
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications to drill high-value perimeter shots, driving a highly efficient offensive outing. Combined with a relentless motor chasing through screens, his timely shot-making provided a crucial secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Sinking multiple spot-up triples wasn't enough to overcome the defensive bleeding that occurred during his minutes. Getting caught out of position on weak-side rotations allowed easy baseline cuts, undermining his efficient perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +9.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.5

Gritty on-ball defense kept his floor somewhat stable, but forcing contested mid-range pull-ups torpedoed his offensive value. The inability to convert in traffic resulted in empty possessions that stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Dunn 16.9m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

Provided solid resistance on the wing, but a lack of offensive punch rendered him a slight net negative. Hesitancy to attack closeouts bogged down the half-court offense, offsetting the value of his perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 15.9m
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.9

A sudden inability to finish through contact around the rim shattered his usual interior efficiency and severely hurt the team's spacing. Getting bullied out of deep post position forced him into low-percentage flip shots, driving a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Brief rotational minutes yielded a relatively flat statistical profile without any major momentum swings. He functioned primarily as a passive ball-mover, failing to assert enough pressure to swing the metrics into the green.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.8

A disastrous two-minute stint saw him repeatedly targeted in drop coverage, hemorrhaging points at the rim. The complete lack of rim deterrence or rebounding presence in that tiny window resulted in a heavily skewed negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -180.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.2m
29
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.7

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc completely tanked his overall effectiveness. The sheer volume of missed step-back jumpers acted as live-ball turnovers, preventing the offense from ever finding a sustainable rhythm despite his usual playmaking gravity.

Shooting
FG 7/25 (28.0%)
3PT 2/14 (14.3%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +15.4
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S LeBron James 36.2m
26
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Despite a strong defensive effort that yielded a high rating on that end, his overall impact was dragged into the red by highly inefficient perimeter shooting. Settling for heavily contested outside looks disrupted the offensive flow and allowed the opposition to capitalize in transition.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/14 (64.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.1%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Scoring +16.8
Creation +4.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.1
Turnovers -19.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 8
S Marcus Smart 31.6m
8
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.7

Perimeter containment and typical defensive grit couldn't mask the damage done by erratic shot selection. Forcing contested triples early in the possession stalled momentum and directly fueled opponent run-outs, resulting in a net-negative performance.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Rui Hachimura 31.0m
3
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Offensive invisibility cratered his overall rating, as he completely failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities on the perimeter. While his weak-side defensive rotations remained solid, the severe lack of scoring gravity cramped the floor for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 30.1m
20
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+24.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact score, highlighted by near-flawless finishing around the rim. He consistently sealed his man early in the shot clock, converting high-percentage looks while providing a reliable anchor on the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +16.5
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Jake LaRavia 21.2m
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Value was entirely generated through high-motor plays and excellent positional defense rather than scoring. By consistently winning 50/50 balls and executing flawless closeouts, he managed to stay in the green even when his jumper abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +9.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 19.0m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and off-ball activity generated a massive hustle rating that defined his stint. Diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs disrupted the opponent's offensive flow enough to secure a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 17.6m
12
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.7

Flawless execution as a lob threat and rim-runner maximized his offensive utility in limited minutes. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown with authoritative finishes, proving highly efficient despite a relatively quiet night in the hustle categories.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +11.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.4

Wreaked absolute havoc as a versatile disruptor, combining elite defensive switchability with timely offensive cuts. His ability to generate second-chance opportunities through sheer effort completely tilted the possession battle in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense +4.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0