Los Angeles Lakers

Western Conference

Los Angeles
Lakers

53-29
W3

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Luka Dončić
Forward-Guard Yr 7 64G (64S)
+23.8
33.5 pts
7.7 reb
8.3 ast
35.8 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by sheer, unapologetic offensive volume, a chaotic blend of historic scoring peaks and brutal shot-selection valleys. When his step-back jumper actually fell, the results were apocalyptic for opposing defenses. He peaked during 03/19 vs MIA, where a 60-point explosion drove a staggering +41.1 impact score. Yet, his insatiable appetite for contested threes often sabotaged his own brilliance. Look at 03/14 vs DEN; despite logging a massive 30-point, 11-rebound, 13-assist line, his high-volume inefficiency from beyond the arc created enough empty possessions to drag his impact down to a negative -1.9. Conversely, during a brutal 11-for-29 shooting night in 03/23 vs DET, Dončić salvaged a solid +11.0 impact score entirely through incredible hustle (+8.3) and relentless defensive engagement. He remains the ultimate high-wire act, a singular force who breaks the math of the sport but occasionally sinks his own offense with stubborn habits.

Austin Reaves
Guard Yr 4 51G (45S)
+11.3
23.3 pts
4.7 reb
5.5 ast
34.5 min

This mid-season stretch defined Austin Reaves as a wildly volatile creator who eventually grabbed the keys to the starting offense. His ceiling as a primary scorer exploded on 02/05 vs PHI, where he dropped 35 points on 12-of-17 shooting to post a staggering +18.3 impact score. Yet, his overall effectiveness routinely swung on the pendulum of his decision-making. During the 02/28 vs GSW matchup, he managed 18 points on an efficient 7-of-11 from the floor, but a barrage of offensive fouls and careless passing reads completely neutralized his value, leaving him with a mediocre +0.6 impact. Conversely, he found ways to dictate games without dominating the box score, like his gritty performance on 03/05 vs DEN. Despite scoring just 16 points, he generated a robust +7.1 impact score by relentlessly chasing down 50/50 balls and playing suffocating perimeter defense. When he balances his aggressive downhill drives with disciplined passing, Reaves shifts from a situational sparkplug into a legitimate offensive engine.

LeBron James
Forward Yr 22 60G (60S)
+11.3
20.9 pts
6.1 reb
7.2 ast
33.2 min

A volatile tug-of-war between surgical brilliance and careless execution defined this late-season stretch for LeBron James. When he locked in, his advanced metrics skyrocketed, peaking on Mar 18 vs HOU. During that contest, a near-flawless 13-for-14 shooting display yielded 30 points and a massive +21.0 impact as he picked apart the defense with elite shot selection. Even when his scoring volume dipped, his sheer basketball IQ compensated beautifully. On Mar 05 vs DEN, he managed just 16 points but still posted a robust +11.2 impact because his elite defensive positioning dictated the game's flow. Yet, hidden costs frequently reared their ugly heads to sabotage his box score. Look no further than Apr 05 vs DAL, where he amassed 30 points, 9 rebounds, and 15 assists, but suffered a -5.9 impact because poor defensive metrics and hidden mistakes dragged his overall value firmly into the red.

Deandre Ayton
Center Yr 7 72G (72S)
+9.1
12.5 pts
8.0 reb
0.8 ast
27.2 min

A maddening tug-of-war between flawless interior efficiency and inexplicable passivity defined this mid-season stretch for Deandre Ayton. When he actually demanded the basketball, he was an absolute force. Look at his 03/12 vs CHI performance, where he bullied his way to 23 points and 10 rebounds on 10-of-13 shooting, generating a robust +8.0 impact score by punishing smaller defenders on the block. Even when his scoring volume plummeted, he could still warp the game through pure hustle and defensive discipline. On 03/16 vs HOU, he managed just 7 points but posted a stellar +8.1 impact rating because he fully embraced a gritty rim-protection role and controlled the glass with 11 boards. Yet, those aggressive flashes only made his frequent disappearing acts more frustrating. During the 03/19 vs MIA matchup, his extreme reluctance to engage in the pick-and-roll completely neutralized his offensive gravity, resulting in an abysmal -8.2 impact score despite hitting three of his five shots. He possesses the soft touch to dominate the paint every night, but his recurring refusal to impose his physical will keeps his ceiling artificially capped.

Rui Hachimura
Forward Yr 6 68G (41S)
+1.6
11.5 pts
3.3 reb
0.8 ast
28.3 min

A maddening inconsistency and glaring hidden costs defined this frustrating stretch for Rui Hachimura, who bounced between the starting lineup and the bench while bleeding value on the margins. The slide began immediately during 02/10 vs SAS, where a brutal shooting slump—including a 3-for-12 mark from the floor—cratered his overall value to a staggering -9.6 impact score. Even when his shot fell, his refusal to do the dirty work severely punished the team. During a 40-minute start on 03/12 vs CHI, he dropped a respectable 15 points but still posted a dismal -7.2 impact because a severe lack of rebounding and playmaking handicapped the half-court offense. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to tilt the floor without filling it up. Despite managing only 8 points on 03/27 vs BKN, physical on-ball defense anchored his value and generated a stellar +8.0 impact score. Ultimately, this twenty-game sample revealed a forward whose empty-calorie scoring too often masked a damaging passivity on the glass.

Jaxson Hayes
Center-Forward Yr 6 66G (9S)
-0.2
7.5 pts
4.1 reb
0.9 ast
18.3 min

Jaxson Hayes spent this twenty-game stretch oscillating between an unstoppable lob threat and a complete offensive ghost. When given extended run, his vertical spacing and weak-side roaming wrecked opposing game plans, peaking on 02/12 vs DAL with a massive +21.3 impact score. He racked up 16 points and 7 rebounds in that start, completely sealing off the paint to generate a +5.5 defensive rating. Even when his shot volume dropped, he found ways to tilt the floor. On 03/27 vs BKN, he took just three shots to score 10 points, yet he still posted a +19.0 impact by leaning on aggressive rim protection and relentless hustle. However, his reliance on guard play for offensive involvement occasionally backfired. During a dismal outing on 03/14 vs DEN, his touches evaporated entirely, leading to a -7.7 impact score as he failed to provide his usual vertical gravity and bled points on the defensive end.

Jake LaRavia
Forward Yr 3 82G (43S)
-1.1
8.2 pts
4.0 reb
1.8 ast
25.1 min

A mid-March promotion to the starting lineup defined this deeply erratic stretch for Jake LaRavia, exposing the razor-thin margin for error in his game. When he embraced the gritty margins, he was a massive plus. On Mar 16 vs HOU, a mere seven points still yielded a massive +12.4 impact score because he relentlessly dove for loose balls and generated crucial deflections. Conversely, forcing the issue as a scorer often backfired spectacularly. During the Apr 05 vs DAL matchup, he tallied 14 points but posted a -1.8 impact score because his brutal 3-for-11 shooting ruined offensive flow, completely negating an elite +8.2 hustle rating. Too often throughout these twenty games, his offensive invisibility or rushed perimeter attempts allowed opponents to pack the paint and kill his team's momentum. Yet, he finally found the perfect balance of spacing and aggression on Apr 09 vs GSW, capping the run with a brilliant +11.1 impact score by torching the nets for 16 points on 6-of-7 shooting.

Luke Kennard
Guard Yr 8 32G (6S)
-1.2
9.0 pts
2.6 reb
2.4 ast
23.0 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by a maddening passivity that frequently turned a lethal sharpshooter into a mere offensive decoy. Far too often, Kennard's hesitancy to let it fly from deep allowed defenders to cheat off him and muck up the spacing, which was glaringly obvious during the 02/20 vs LAC matchup where he posted a brutal -6.6 impact. Even when his shots actually fell, defensive limitations and a lack of secondary playmaking dragged his overall value into the red. During the 03/08 vs NYK contest, a solid 12-point scoring night was completely undone by hidden negative factors on the other end of the floor, resulting in a poor -3.4 impact score. Yet, when he actively hunted his shot and contributed on the margins, his true value emerged. Look no further than the 02/12 vs DAL game; he scored just 9 points, but by grabbing 7 rebounds and punishing defensive lapses with quick-trigger perimeter strikes, he generated a massive +7.0 impact. Ultimately, his theoretical gravity means absolutely nothing if he refuses to pull the trigger or defend his yard.

Marcus Smart
Guard Yr 11 62G (54S)
-2.1
9.3 pts
2.8 reb
3.0 ast
28.5 min

This stretch of the season was defined by a maddening Jekyll-and-Hyde act, oscillating wildly between offensive catastrophes and defensive masterclasses. When his shot selection soured, his value plummeted. On 02/22 vs BOS, Smart was a complete zero offensively, bricking all seven of his field goal attempts to torpedo his night with a brutal -15.9 impact score. Even when he found a rare scoring rhythm, hidden costs frequently dragged down his overall effectiveness. During the 03/16 vs HOU matchup, he managed an 11-point scoring surge, but still registered a -6.9 impact because severe defensive breakdowns at the point of attack bled away his value. Yet, when the two-way synergy clicks, he remains an absolute game-wrecker. On 03/14 vs DEN, he generated a massive +23.0 impact score; while he dropped 21 points, it was his relentless point-of-attack defense and elite hustle that actually dictated the terms of engagement.

Jarred Vanderbilt
Forward Yr 7 65G (3S)
-5.1
4.4 pts
4.5 reb
1.3 ast
17.3 min

Jarred Vanderbilt’s mid-season stretch was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between his elite defensive disruption and the severe floor-spacing bottlenecks he created on offense. He briefly looked like a two-way menace on 02/07 vs GSW, posting 13 points and 8 rebounds in 19 minutes off the bench. His highly uncharacteristic shooting efficiency and suffocating perimeter defense fueled a stellar +8.7 impact score. That offensive mirage vanished almost immediately. Just two days later on 02/09 vs OKC, his complete offensive invisibility allowed defenders to roam as free safeties, creating a spacing nightmare that tanked his overall rating to a disastrous -8.8 impact score. Time and again, opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter to crowd primary playmakers, turning his minutes into an absolute slog. He finally flipped the script on 04/02 vs OKC, completely changing the game's complexion in just 12 minutes of action. Even with a modest 9 points, his relentless defensive pressure and chaotic energy generated a massive +11.5 impact score, reminding everyone why his hustle remains an intoxicating, if heavily flawed, asset.

Nick Smith Jr.
Guard Yr 2 30G (1S)
-5.3
6.2 pts
0.8 reb
1.0 ast
12.5 min

Nick Smith Jr.'s first twenty games of the 2025-26 campaign were defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between brilliant offensive sparks and disastrous, momentum-killing stints. When his jumper was falling, he looked like an elite floor-spacer. He erupted for 25 points on 11/03 vs POR, generating a massive +9.4 impact score through perfect floor spacing and scorching perimeter execution. Yet, earning a rare spot in the starting lineup on 12/23 vs PHX exposed his glaring defensive flaws. Despite tallying a respectable 12 points, he posted a brutal -14.8 impact mark because opponents ruthlessly targeted him, bleeding points on the defensive end to crater his overall value. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to tilt the game positively even when the raw scoring wasn't there. On 11/15 vs MIL, he managed a +4.8 impact score while scoring just 3 points because his immediate aggression hunting his shot from beyond the arc sparked a quick momentum swing for the second unit. Until he stops rushing decisions and tightens his defensive focus, Smith will remain a volatile gamble rather than a reliable rotational piece.

Dalton Knecht
Forward Yr 1 54G (1S)
-5.9
4.2 pts
1.4 reb
0.4 ast
10.2 min

A crippling perimeter slump and erratic bench usage defined this brutal mid-season stretch for Dalton Knecht. He occasionally flashed his pure scoring ceiling, like when he poured in 10 points in just four minutes on 12/30 vs DET, generating a massive +8.8 impact score through flawless shot-making. However, those fleeting sparks were buried under a mountain of forced jumpers and defensive lapses. Look no further than his disastrous 19 minutes on 01/07 vs SAS, where he bricked all five of his three-point attempts to tank his offensive value and post a brutal -10.0 impact score. Even when he managed to put the ball in the basket on 02/10 vs SAS, scoring 9 points in 16 minutes, his overall impact remained deep in the red at -3.6. That negative rating stemmed directly from a complete lack of secondary playmaking and an inability to hit from deep, allowing defenders to sag off and clog the lane. Until he stops hijacking possessions to shoot his way out of funks, his minutes will continue to bleed value.

Drew Timme
Forward Yr 1 27G (1S)
-6.2
3.4 pts
1.2 reb
0.9 ast
8.7 min

Drew Timme's early season was a chaotic tug-of-war between his dazzling post moves and his glaring physical limitations as a fringe rotation player. When given a real leash on 01/17 vs POR, he completely dismantled their interior defense with elite footwork, racking up 21 points and a +3.7 impact score in 29 minutes. He even managed to be a massive plus without scoring a single point on 01/24 vs DAL. During that brief eight-minute stint, his exceptional positional awareness in drop coverage anchored the paint to earn a +3.1 impact score despite putting up zero points. But the margins for an under-athletic big man are brutally thin in the modern NBA. Opponents aggressively hunted his slow feet in space, perfectly illustrated on 01/30 vs WAS where he posted a disastrous -7.5 impact score. Despite playing 17 minutes and handing out three assists, he was relentlessly targeted in high pick-and-rolls, bleeding points on the defensive end. Timme remains a fascinating situational specialist who must constantly scheme around his heavy-footed defense to survive.

Gabe Vincent
Guard Yr 6 29G (7S)
-7.2
4.8 pts
0.9 reb
1.3 ast
19.3 min

A brutal offensive slump and glaring defensive inconsistencies defined Gabe Vincent's midseason stint as a deep-bench liability. Even when his jump shot occasionally fell, hidden costs routinely dragged down his overall value. During the 01/28 vs CLE matchup, he poured in 11 points on crisp 4-of-6 shooting, yet suffered a miserable -6.2 impact score because underlying defensive lapses bled points on the other end. He ran into similar issues during the 02/24 vs WAS game, where another 11-point outing resulted in a -2.2 impact score due to erratic chucking from beyond the arc. He only managed to flip the script when he simplified his approach and stopped forcing the issue. In a quiet 03/12 vs BKN appearance, Vincent tallied just 6 points but generated a +3.7 impact score by picking his spots perfectly within the offensive flow and knocking down timely perimeter looks. Unfortunately, those mistake-free flashes were too rare, leaving him stuck as a stagnant perimeter spacer who routinely bogged down the second unit.

Bronny James
Guard Yr 1 42G (1S)
-7.3
2.9 pts
0.5 reb
1.2 ast
8.9 min

This stretch of the season was defined by a harsh reality: Bronny James could thrive in microscopic bursts, but completely unraveled when handed extended rotational freedom. Look at his brief eight-minute appearance on Jan 28 vs CLE. He scored just 8 points, yet generated a massive +5.5 impact score because his flawless shot selection and confident perimeter execution created immense offensive value without requiring high volume. Conversely, longer leashes usually ended in disaster, as seen on Feb 10 vs SAS. He scored 12 points on efficient 5-for-10 shooting, but hidden on-court costs drastically overshadowed his relentless hustle and dragged him down to a brutal -7.8 impact score. The bottom fell out completely on Mar 30 vs WAS. Given 26 minutes of run, he posted an abysmal -18.3 impact score by repeatedly settling for heavily contested pull-up jumpers that killed offensive possessions and fueled opponent fast breaks. Until he stops forcing terrible perimeter looks, his utility belongs strictly in garbage time.

Maxi Kleber
Forward Yr 8 42G (1S)
-7.3
2.0 pts
2.0 reb
0.6 ast
11.0 min

Maxi Kleber’s midseason stretch was defined by extreme offensive passivity, transforming him into a strictly utilitarian defensive specialist who often left his team playing four-on-five. When his defensive motor ran hot, his connective play yielded massive dividends. On Feb 05 vs PHI, he scored just four points in 26 minutes but generated a stellar +5.1 impact score through elite weak-side rim protection and flawless defensive rotations. Efficiency rarely told the whole story, however. On Feb 10 vs SAS, Kleber hit all his shots for a stretch-high six points but posted a dismal -4.3 impact score because of glaring rotational breakdowns on the other end. More frequently, his passivity was a structural liability. During a scoreless ten-minute stint on Feb 24 vs ORL, his complete offensive invisibility allowed the defense to aggressively cheat off him and crowd the paint, dragging his impact down to -2.8. While his positional awareness still holds situational value, his chronic hesitancy to shoot makes him a difficult puzzle to solve in modern NBA lineups.

Chris Mañon
Guard Yr 0 9G
-7.4
0.8 pts
1.1 reb
0.3 ast
5.1 min
Kobe Bufkin
Guard Yr 2 16G (1S)
-7.8
2.9 pts
0.8 reb
0.6 ast
7.5 min
Adou Thiero
Guard Yr 0 25G
-8.1
1.9 pts
1.1 reb
0.4 ast
6.0 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by erratic, fleeting cameos where Adou Thiero functioned less as a reliable rotation piece and more as a chaotic spark plug who often short-circuited. When given extended run on 12/05 vs BOS, he logged a disastrous -14.1 impact score across 20 minutes. His complete offensive invisibility and blown defensive assignments actively cratered the team's net rating that night. Yet, he occasionally managed to tilt the margins in his favor without taking a single shot. On 11/30 vs NOP, Thiero posted a +1.1 impact score in just three minutes simply by flying around the court to generate crucial hustle stats. Even when he finally found the basket on 12/23 vs PHX to score a stretch-high 6 points, his overall impact still dipped to -0.9 because his aggressive downhill driving failed to offset the hidden costs of a disjointed floor game. Ultimately, his best moments came from pure force, like on 12/28 vs SAC where a brief five-minute stint yielded a stellar +4.5 impact score purely because he injected immediate physicality and crashed the glass.

GAME LOG

W
UTA UTA 107
131 LAL LAL
Apr 12 Analysis available
+24
W
PHX PHX 73
101 LAL LAL
Apr 10 Analysis available
+28
W
LAL LAL 119
103 GSW GSW
Apr 9 Analysis available
+16
L
OKC OKC 123
87 LAL LAL
Apr 7 Analysis available
-36
L
LAL LAL 128
134 DAL DAL
Apr 5 Analysis available
-6
L
LAL LAL 96
139 OKC OKC
Apr 2 Analysis available
-43
W
CLE CLE 113
127 LAL LAL
Mar 31 Analysis available
+14
W
WAS WAS 101
120 LAL LAL
Mar 30 Analysis available
+19
W
BKN BKN 99
116 LAL LAL
Mar 28 Analysis available
+17
W
LAL LAL 137
130 IND IND
Mar 25 Analysis available
+7
L
LAL LAL 110
113 DET DET
Mar 23 Analysis available
-3
W
LAL LAL 105
104 ORL ORL
Mar 21 Analysis available
+1
W
LAL LAL 134
126 MIA MIA
Mar 19 Analysis available
+8
W
LAL LAL 124
116 HOU HOU
Mar 18 Analysis available
+8
W
LAL LAL 100
92 HOU HOU
Mar 16 Analysis available
+8
W
DEN DEN 125
127 LAL LAL
Mar 14 Analysis available
+2
W
CHI CHI 130
142 LAL LAL
Mar 12 Analysis available
+12
W
MIN MIN 106
120 LAL LAL
Mar 10 Analysis available
+14
W
NYK NYK 97
110 LAL LAL
Mar 8 Analysis available
+13
W
IND IND 117
128 LAL LAL
Mar 6 Analysis available
+11
L
LAL LAL 113
120 DEN DEN
Mar 5 Analysis available
-7
W
NOP NOP 101
110 LAL LAL
Mar 3 Analysis available
+9
W
SAC SAC 104
128 LAL LAL
Mar 1 Analysis available
+24
W
LAL LAL 129
101 GSW GSW
Feb 28 Analysis available
+28
L
LAL LAL 110
113 PHX PHX
Feb 26 Analysis available
-3
L
ORL ORL 110
109 LAL LAL
Feb 24 Analysis available
-1
L
BOS BOS 111
89 LAL LAL
Feb 22 Analysis available
-22
W
LAC LAC 122
125 LAL LAL
Feb 20 Analysis available
+3
W
DAL DAL 104
124 LAL LAL
Feb 12 Analysis available
+20
L
SAS SAS 136
108 LAL LAL
Feb 10 Analysis available
-28
L
OKC OKC 119
110 LAL LAL
Feb 9 Analysis available
-9
W
GSW GSW 99
105 LAL LAL
Feb 7 Analysis available
+6
W
PHI PHI 115
119 LAL LAL
Feb 5 Analysis available
+4
W
LAL LAL 125
109 BKN BKN
Feb 3 Analysis available
+16
L
LAL LAL 100
112 NYK NYK
Feb 1 Analysis available
-12
W
LAL LAL 142
111 WAS WAS
Jan 30 Analysis available
+31
L
LAL LAL 99
129 CLE CLE
Jan 28 Analysis available
-30
W
LAL LAL 129
118 CHI CHI
Jan 27 Analysis available
+11
W
LAL LAL 116
110 DAL DAL
Jan 25 Analysis available
+6
L
LAL LAL 104
112 LAC LAC
Jan 23 Analysis available
-8
W
LAL LAL 115
107 DEN DEN
Jan 21 Analysis available
+8
W
TOR TOR 93
110 LAL LAL
Jan 19 Analysis available
+17
L
LAL LAL 116
132 POR POR
Jan 18 Analysis available
-16
L
CHA CHA 135
117 LAL LAL
Jan 16 Analysis available
-18
W
ATL ATL 116
141 LAL LAL
Jan 14 Analysis available
+25
L
LAL LAL 112
124 SAC SAC
Jan 13 Analysis available
-12
L
MIL MIL 105
101 LAL LAL
Jan 10 Analysis available
-4
L
LAL LAL 91
107 SAS SAS
Jan 8 Analysis available
-16
W
LAL LAL 111
103 NOP NOP
Jan 7 Analysis available
+8
W
MEM MEM 114
120 LAL LAL
Jan 5 Analysis available
+6
W
MEM MEM 121
128 LAL LAL
Jan 3 Analysis available
+7
L
DET DET 128
106 LAL LAL
Dec 31 Analysis available
-22
W
SAC SAC 101
125 LAL LAL
Dec 29 Analysis available
+24
L
HOU HOU 119
96 LAL LAL
Dec 26 Analysis available
-23
L
LAL LAL 108
132 PHX PHX
Dec 24 Analysis available
-24
L
LAL LAL 88
103 LAC LAC
Dec 21 Analysis available
-15
W
LAL LAL 143
135 UTA UTA
Dec 19 Analysis available
+8
W
LAL LAL 116
114 PHX PHX
Dec 15 Analysis available
+2
L
SAS SAS 132
119 LAL LAL
Dec 11 Analysis available
-13
W
LAL LAL 112
108 PHI PHI
Dec 8 Analysis available
+4
L
LAL LAL 105
126 BOS BOS
Dec 6 Analysis available
-21
W
LAL LAL 123
120 TOR TOR
Dec 5 Analysis available
+3
L
PHX PHX 125
108 LAL LAL
Dec 2 Analysis available
-17
W
NOP NOP 121
133 LAL LAL
Dec 1 Analysis available
+12
W
DAL DAL 119
129 LAL LAL
Nov 29 Analysis available
+10
W
LAC LAC 118
135 LAL LAL
Nov 26 Analysis available
+17
W
LAL LAL 108
106 UTA UTA
Nov 24 Analysis available
+2
W
UTA UTA 126
140 LAL LAL
Nov 19 Analysis available
+14
W
LAL LAL 119
95 MIL MIL
Nov 16 Analysis available
+24
W
LAL LAL 118
104 NOP NOP
Nov 15 Analysis available
+14
L
LAL LAL 92
121 OKC OKC
Nov 13 Analysis available
-29
W
LAL LAL 121
111 CHA CHA
Nov 11 Analysis available
+10
L
LAL LAL 102
122 ATL ATL
Nov 9 Analysis available
-20
W
SAS SAS 116
118 LAL LAL
Nov 6 Analysis available
+2
W
LAL LAL 123
115 POR POR
Nov 4 Analysis available
+8
W
MIA MIA 120
130 LAL LAL
Nov 3 Analysis available
+10
W
LAL LAL 117
112 MEM MEM
Nov 1 Analysis available
+5
W
LAL LAL 116
115 MIN MIN
Oct 30 Analysis available
+1
L
POR POR 122
108 LAL LAL
Oct 27 Analysis available
-14
W
LAL LAL 127
120 SAC SAC
Oct 26 Analysis available
+7
W
MIN MIN 110
128 LAL LAL
Oct 24 Analysis available
+18
L
GSW GSW 119
109 LAL LAL
Oct 21 Analysis available
-10