Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAL lead HOU lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
HOU 2P — 3P —
LAL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 151 attempts

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Thompson 4/14 -4.6
Smith Jr. Hard 6/13 +4.7
Sheppard Hard 5/12 +0.5
Eason 6/11 +1.8
Sengun 5/9 +0.5
Okogie Hard 3/6 +0.4
Finney-Smith Hard 2/5 +0.7
Holiday Hard 2/5 +0.2

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

James 9/20 -2.5
Reaves 4/16 -6.6
Ayton Open 9/14 +1.0
Hachimura Hard 5/11 +1.7
Smart Hard 3/7 +2.1
Kennard Hard 0/4 -3.8
Vanderbilt 1/3 -1.1
LaRavia Open 1/1 +0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
HOU
LAL
33/75 Field Goals 32/76
44.0% Field Goal % 42.1%
14/40 3-Pointers 7/27
35.0% 3-Point % 25.9%
19/25 Free Throws 22/27
76.0% Free Throw % 81.5%
57.6% True Shooting % 52.9%
46 Total Rebounds 51
6 Offensive 13
28 Defensive 28
25 Assists 19
2.27 Assist/TO Ratio 1.27
10 Turnovers 15
10 Steals 5
4 Blocks 5
22 Fouls 20
36 Points in Paint 44
12 Fast Break Pts 10
18 Points off TOs 13
6 Second Chance Pts 13
18 Bench Points 26
13 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Deandre Ayton
18 PTS · 17 REB · 0 AST · 38.2 MIN
+26.42
2
Jabari Smith Jr.
22 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 42.2 MIN
+19.89
3
LeBron James
25 PTS · 3 REB · 7 AST · 39.4 MIN
+17.19
4
Tari Eason
18 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 31.2 MIN
+12.83
5
Alperen Sengun
14 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 43.4 MIN
+12.03
6
Amen Thompson
15 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 45.7 MIN
+11.77
7
Reed Sheppard
12 PTS · 0 REB · 6 AST · 35.1 MIN
+11.76
8
Austin Reaves
22 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 33.7 MIN
+8.05
9
Rui Hachimura
12 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 36.6 MIN
+6.72
10
Josh Okogie
7 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 18.3 MIN
+6.33
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:06 TEAM defensive REBOUND 99–93
Q4 0:06 MISS A. Reaves 25' pullup 3PT 99–93
Q4 0:11 J. Smith Jr. Free Throw 2 of 2 (22 PTS) 99–93
Q4 0:11 J. Smith Jr. Free Throw 1 of 2 (21 PTS) 98–93
Q4 0:11 A. Reaves take personal FOUL (3 PF) (Smith Jr. 2 FT) 97–93
Q4 0:11 J. Smith Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 97–93
Q4 0:12 MISS L. James 28' pullup 3PT 97–93
Q4 0:19 A. Thompson Free Throw 2 of 2 (15 PTS) 97–93
Q4 0:19 TEAM offensive REBOUND 96–93
Q4 0:19 MISS A. Thompson Free Throw 1 of 2 96–93
Q4 0:19 M. Smart take personal FOUL (2 PF) (Thompson 2 FT) 96–93
Q4 0:22 D. Ayton tip DUNK (18 PTS) 96–93
Q4 0:23 D. Ayton REBOUND (Off:10 Def:7) 96–91
Q4 0:24 MISS A. Reaves 26' 3PT 96–91
Q4 0:24 R. Hachimura REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 96–91

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

LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 39.4m
25
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.5

James relentlessly attacked the interior to generate a +14.6 offensive credit, overcoming a brutal 0-of-6 showing from beyond the arc. He was equally imposing on the other end, completely blanking his defensive assignments (0-of-4 shooting) while racking up 4 deflections.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 38.2m
18
pts
17
reb
0
ast
Impact
+24.1

Ayton was an absolute force in the paint, pairing hyper-efficient finishing (9-of-14 FG) with 8 screen assists to drive a massive +27.2 offensive credit. He completely dominated the glass with 17 rebounds and anchored the defense by holding opponents to just 5-of-16 shooting when targeted.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +19.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 36.7m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.3

Smart's offensive execution was disastrous, as a staggering 6 turnovers (well above his 2.7 average) completely erased the value of his 3-of-7 shooting from deep. This sloppy decision-making resulted in a -2.8 offensive credit, severely undercutting his otherwise solid point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Rui Hachimura 36.6m
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Hachimura provided a steady dose of secondary scoring, hitting 2-of-3 from deep to anchor his +6.5 offensive credit. His most vital contribution came defensively, where he contested 7 shots and stifled his matchups to a frigid 35% conversion rate.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luke Kennard 31.2m
1
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

Kennard's jumper completely abandoned him, resulting in a scoreless night from the floor (0-of-4) and a damaging -3.6 offensive credit. He tried to compensate with active hands, generating 3 deflections and 2 steals, but his primary utility as a floor-spacer was entirely absent.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring -2.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
22
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.6

Reaves endured a miserable shooting night (4-of-16 FG) but salvaged his +11.5 offensive credit by relentlessly attacking the rim and converting 12-of-13 free throws. Defensively, he struggled to contain his matchups, allowing opponents to shoot 54% on 13 contested looks.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +3.3
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

Hayes was completely invisible during his brief stint, failing to attempt a single field goal or secure meaningful rebounds. His lack of aggression rendered him an offensive zero, while opponents easily converted 2-of-3 shots against him inside.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -51.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

LaRavia was a complete non-factor offensively, attempting just a single shot during his 9 minutes on the floor. He did manage to execute his defensive assignments flawlessly, blanking opponents on three contested attempts to earn a +0.4 defensive credit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Vanderbilt logged just under six minutes of cardio, failing to make any significant dent in the box score. A pair of deflections highlighted his brief appearance, but his offensive limitations kept him glued to the bench for most of the night.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 45.7m
15
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.9

Thompson's offensive rhythm completely abandoned him, as a frigid 4-of-14 shooting night severely capped his scoring value. He salvaged his outing by wreaking havoc on the other end, generating a +9.9 defensive credit behind 4 steals and stifling point-of-attack coverage that limited opponents to 4-of-9 shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.7m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense +8.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 43.4m
14
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.2

Sengun operated more as a facilitator than a primary scorer, dishing out 8 assists (well above his 5.9 average) to keep the offense flowing despite a dip in his own shot volume. However, his playmaking was undercut by sloppy decision-making, as 5 giveaways limited his overall offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.4m
Scoring +11.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense +3.4
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
22
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.4

A lethal perimeter stroke (4-of-9 from deep) and flawless ball security (zero turnovers) fueled a massive +19.9 offensive credit for the young forward. He paired that scoring gravity with sturdy rim protection, logging two blocks and holding opponents to 47% shooting on 15 defended attempts.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.2m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense -2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Reed Sheppard 35.1m
12
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.0

Sheppard's value was entirely driven by his disruptive defensive instincts, racking up 6 deflections and 3 steals to fuel a +4.9 hustle credit. He completely locked down his assignments, suffocating shooters to a dismal 3-of-11 (27%) clip when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +6.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tari Eason 31.2m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Eason delivered a highly efficient scoring punch (6-of-11 FG) that drove his impressive +15.6 offensive credit. However, his defensive impact was muted as his primary matchups torched him, shooting 8-of-12 (67%) when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -6.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Okogie 18.3m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Okogie provided a modest but efficient scoring bump (+5.4 offensive credit) off the bench, hitting half of his field goals to nearly double his season scoring average. His defensive impact was less sturdy, as opponents easily converted 4-of-6 attempts when he contested the shot.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Holiday offered very little playmaking or rebounding in his 13 minutes, settling for a quiet 5-point outing that barely moved the needle offensively. He did manage to stay solid on the perimeter, holding his direct matchups to just 3-of-9 shooting.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Finney-Smith operated strictly as a spot-up threat during his brief 11-minute stint, taking all of his shots from beyond the arc. Knocking down 2-of-5 triples provided a minor offensive lift (+1.9 credit), though his overall footprint on the game remained minimal.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1