Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

LAL LAL Shot-making Δ

James 12/17 +6.8
Reaves 3/16 -10.4
Smart Hard 4/15 -4.1
Hachimura 7/13 +2.9
Ayton Open 5/12 -3.8
Kennard Hard 1/4 -1.0
Hayes Open 1/3 -2.2
LaRavia 1/2 +0.7
Vanderbilt 1/2 -0.5
Knecht Hard 0/1 -0.8

OKC OKC Shot-making Δ

Holmgren 9/17 +1.0
Mitchell 7/16 -2.0
Gilgeous-Alexander 8/15 +0.6
McCain Hard 4/7 +5.2
Joe 4/6 +2.5
Wallace 2/6 -2.0
Dort Hard 2/5 +1.0
Caruso Hard 2/5 -0.7
Hartenstein Hard 3/3 +3.5
Williams 1/3 -0.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAL
OKC
35/85 Field Goals 42/85
41.2% Field Goal % 49.4%
10/30 3-Pointers 13/30
33.3% 3-Point % 43.3%
10/13 Free Throws 11/12
76.9% Free Throw % 91.7%
49.6% True Shooting % 59.8%
47 Total Rebounds 50
12 Offensive 9
29 Defensive 35
26 Assists 29
1.44 Assist/TO Ratio 1.81
17 Turnovers 14
8 Steals 8
4 Blocks 7
16 Fouls 14
40 Points in Paint 48
11 Fast Break Pts 16
16 Points off TOs 20
11 Second Chance Pts 21
15 Bench Points 34
7 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Chet Holmgren
24 PTS · 12 REB · 1 AST · 30.8 MIN
+29.72
2
LeBron James
27 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 36.3 MIN
+24.62
3
Isaiah Hartenstein
8 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 24.8 MIN
+16.33
4
Rui Hachimura
18 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 36.8 MIN
+14.13
5
Marcus Smart
12 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 32.0 MIN
+12.51
6
Ajay Mitchell
18 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 27.9 MIN
+10.48
7
Isaiah Joe
9 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 11.3 MIN
+10.35
8
Deandre Ayton
10 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 27.4 MIN
+9.88
9
Jared McCain
12 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 14.9 MIN
+9.87
10
Cason Wallace
5 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 19.4 MIN
+7.25
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:20 J. LaRavia 3PT (3 PTS) (B. James 1 AST) 90–108
Q4 0:41 I. Joe 26' 3PT (9 PTS) (J. McCain 2 AST) 87–108
Q4 0:51 LAL shot clock Team TURNOVER 87–105
Q4 1:13 N. Smith Jr. REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 87–105
Q4 1:15 MISS A. Wiggins driving floating bank Shot 87–105
Q4 1:26 J. Williams REBOUND (Off:2 Def:5) 87–105
Q4 1:29 MISS D. Knecht 12' pullup Shot 87–105
Q4 1:45 I. Hartenstein 10' running pullup Jump Shot (8 PTS) (S. Gilgeous-Alexander 6 AST) 87–105
Q4 1:49 C. Wallace REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 87–103
Q4 1:53 MISS M. Smart 25' 3PT 87–103
Q4 2:12 I. Hartenstein 13' turnaround Hook (6 PTS) (L. Dort 4 AST) 87–103
Q4 2:39 L. James 3PT (27 PTS) (R. Hachimura 2 AST) 87–101
Q4 2:50 OKC shot clock Team TURNOVER 84–101
Q4 2:50 TEAM offensive REBOUND 84–101
Q4 2:51 MISS A. Mitchell 11' pullup Shot 84–101

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

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
18
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

A catastrophic lack of ball security ruined Gilgeous-Alexander's night, as his 7 turnovers (↑ his 2.5 average) completely neutralized his efficient 8-of-15 shooting. While he salvaged some value defensively by holding opponents to 36% shooting, his sloppy orchestration severely capped his offensive ceiling (+1.4).

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.0
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 7
S Chet Holmgren 30.8m
24
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+32.1

Holmgren was an absolute two-way terror, pairing a highly efficient 24 points with a massive +22.9 offensive credit. He completely locked down the paint on the other end, contesting 13 shots and suffocating his matchups to a dismal 25% shooting clip (4-of-16) to anchor a +9.8 defensive score.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +13.3
Defense +3.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Luguentz Dort 27.9m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Dort struggled to contain his primary assignments, allowing them to shoot a crisp 62% (5-of-8) when he was the nearest defender. His offensive impact was similarly muted, as he managed just 6 points (↓ his 7.5 average) on a low-volume perimeter diet.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ajay Mitchell 27.9m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Mitchell stepped up as a vital scoring engine, pouring in 18 points (↑ his 11.9 average) to drive a strong +11.3 offensive credit. He complemented his aggressive shot creation with locked-in perimeter defense, holding his direct matchups to a frigid 29% from the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.0%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

Hartenstein played the role of the perfect connective big, converting all three of his shot attempts while generating a +13.9 offensive credit through flawless execution. His rim protection was equally vital, as he stifled opponents to just 33% shooting (5-of-15) when targeted.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +6.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Williams made his mark entirely through grit and positional awareness, drawing 2 charges to fuel a massive +7.4 hustle credit. His defensive discipline was spectacular, contesting 7 shots and erasing his primary assignments, who managed a putrid 1-of-8 (12%) against him.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense +1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 20.4m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Caruso struggled to imprint his usual defensive identity on the game, allowing his matchups to shoot a comfortable 55% (6-of-11) when guarded. His offensive contribution was minimal, as he settled for a low-volume 5 points while failing to generate his typical disruptive hustle stats.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +42.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Wallace compensated for a quiet offensive outing (5 points) by unleashing absolute havoc on the defensive end, racking up 3 steals and 4 deflections to earn a +8.1 defensive credit. Despite his disruptive hands, his on-ball containment was slightly leaky, allowing matchups to convert 56% of their attempts.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
Jared McCain 14.9m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

McCain caught absolute fire from beyond the arc, burying 4 of his 5 three-point attempts to generate a robust +12.1 offensive credit. However, his defensive liabilities were glaring, as opponents easily bypassed him to shoot 75% when he was the primary defender.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 11.3m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Joe provided a hyper-efficient spark plug off the bench, converting 4 of his 6 attempts to drive a solid +7.8 offensive credit. He played within the flow of the offense, committing zero turnovers while chipping in just enough perimeter gravity to keep the defense honest.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Wiggins was completely ineffective during his brief five-minute stint, missing both of his shot attempts and failing to record a single counting stat. His inability to find a rhythm resulted in a hollow -1.6 offensive penalty.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Williams was a non-factor in his two minutes of action, failing to attempt a shot or secure a rebound. His sole contribution was a single deflection, underscoring a completely invisible bench cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Rui Hachimura 36.9m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.1

Hachimura provided a reliable scoring punch (18 points on 7-of-13 shooting) to buoy his +11.8 offensive credit, continuing his recent hot streak from beyond the arc (3-of-6). However, he bled value on the other end, allowing his primary assignments to shoot a blistering 69% (9-of-13) when he was the nearest defender.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Scoring +13.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S LeBron James 36.3m
27
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+24.6

James dictated the terms of engagement with surgical scoring efficiency, burying 12 of his 17 attempts to generate a massive +22.7 offensive credit. He punished defenders from the perimeter (3-of-6 from deep) rather than settling, proving his aging legs still possess elite burst when carefully managed.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +22.4
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Austin Reaves 35.9m
8
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.0

A brutal shooting slump completely derailed Reaves's night, as he bricked his way to 8 points on a dismal 3-of-16 from the field, resulting in a -5.4 offensive penalty. The poor decision-making compounded his struggles, with 4 turnovers (↑ his 2.8 average) undermining his otherwise solid perimeter defense (opponents shot just 31% against him).

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Marcus Smart 32.0m
12
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.7

Smart's relentless defensive motor salvaged an otherwise ugly shooting night (4-of-15), generating a +8.4 defensive credit through sheer disruption. His 4 steals (↑ his 2.0 average) and 4 deflections kept the opposing offense off balance, even as his primary assignments found success (6-of-8) when directly challenging him.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +6.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 27.4m
10
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.0

Ayton's value was anchored in his interior presence rather than his scoring column, as evidenced by his 12 rebounds (↑ his 7.7 average) and 12 shot contests. While his touch was slightly off (5-of-12 from the floor), he leveraged his size to hold opponents to a respectable 44% shooting when targeted, contributing to a +1.9 defensive credit.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +15.2
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 28.6m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Kennard's passive approach severely capped his value, as he attempted just 4 shots to finish well below his 11.3 scoring average. His inability to act as a floor-spacing threat was compounded by leaky defense, allowing opponents to shoot 56% when he was the primary contest.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaxson Hayes 16.1m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Hayes struggled to find any offensive rhythm, finishing with just 3 points and coughing up 3 turnovers (↑ his 0.7 average) in a sloppy 16-minute stint. He offered some resistance on the glass with 6 rebounds, but his interior defense was porous, allowing matchups to convert 67% of their looks.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -42.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jake LaRavia 13.7m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

LaRavia was an absolute ghost offensively, attempting just two shots and committing 2 turnovers to earn a -1.7 offensive penalty. He managed to salvage some utility on the other end, holding his defensive assignments to a respectable 3-of-7 shooting during his brief 13-minute cameo to post a +4.8 defensive credit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Vanderbilt was completely invisible during his six minutes of action, failing to register a single hustle stat or meaningful defensive impact. His inability to assert himself on the glass (just 1 rebound) rendered his brief rotation stint entirely hollow.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
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
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

James logged less than two minutes of pure garbage time, failing to attempt a single shot or grab a rebound. His lone contribution was a single assist, highlighting a completely empty cameo at the end of the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Smith Jr. was deployed strictly for mop-up duty, grabbing a single rebound in under two minutes of action. He completely bypassed the offense, failing to attempt a shot in a stat-less appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Thiero saw the floor for less than two minutes, offering no offensive production and failing to record a box score stat. His only notable involvement was a single defensive contest where his matchup converted the shot.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
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
-8.9

Knecht's fleeting appearance yielded nothing but a missed field goal and empty cardio. He failed to generate any offensive or hustle statistics, serving merely as a warm body in garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0