Lakers survive chaotic finish in Phoenix after blowing 20-point lead

Los Angeles escapes with a 116-114 win despite shooting 7-for-37 from three and nearly collapsing in the fourth quarter.

By James O'SullivanPublished Dec 15, 2025, 7:00 AMUpdated Dec 15, 2025, 7:00 AM
Los Angeles Lakers

Los Angeles Lakers - DR

Advertising

How to almost lose a won game

The Lakers had every reason to lose this game. They shot 7-for-37 from three-point range—an absolutely grotesque 18.9% that would embarrass a recreational league team. Their overall shooting was mediocre at 43%. They built a 20-point lead entering the fourth quarter, then watched it evaporate as Phoenix clawed back with ferocious urgency. And yet, Los Angeles walked out of the Footprint Center with a 116-114 victory, saved by LeBron James sinking two free throws after a three-point shooting foul with seconds remaining.

This wasn't pretty basketball. This was survival basketball, the kind where you shoot yourself in the foot repeatedly and somehow still manage to walk away. The Suns, fueled by Devin Booker, Collin Gillespie, and Mark Williams, mounted a comeback that should've been rewarded with a win. Instead, they got a controversial ending and another moral victory that means absolutely nothing in the standings.


The Dillon Brooks meltdown that changed everything

Let's talk about the chaos that defined the final minutes. Dillon Brooks and LeBron James got into it during the third quarter, resulting in technical fouls and escalating tension that boiled over late. Brooks was ejected for an unsportsmanlike act after losing his composure following what appeared to be a shooting foul that wasn't called in his favor. The frustration was understandable—he felt wronged on a three-point attempt where contact seemed clear on replays.

But here's where it gets messy: LeBron's technical foul for the altercation seemed lenient considering he appeared to make physical contact with an official in a manner that looked aggressive on camera. That's typically an automatic ejection, yet LeBron stayed in the game. The inconsistency in officiating standards became the talking point, overshadowing what should've been a discussion about Phoenix's resilience and Los Angeles' inability to close games cleanly.


The officiating farce that nobody will defend

Then came the sequence that will dominate last-two-minute reports and post-game debates for days. On the possession immediately following Brooks' ejection, LeBron drew a three-point shooting foul that sent him to the line for three free throws. The contact was there, legitimately, but the disparity in how fouls were called became impossible to ignore. Brooks gets mauled on a three-point attempt with no whistle, then watches LeBron get a far softer call on the next possession that decides the game.

This isn't about conspiracy theories or referee agendas. It's about basic consistency. Either you protect shooters on three-point attempts or you don't. Either you enforce physical contact rules uniformly or you create the appearance of favoritism. The officials chose neither path, instead delivering a finish that felt arbitrary and undermined both teams' efforts.


Phoenix's comeback deserved better than this ending

The Suns erased a 20-point deficit in the fourth quarter, which should be the headline. Booker took over offensively, Gillespie provided energy, and Williams controlled the interior when Phoenix needed stops. They turned a blowout into a legitimate contest through sheer force of will, something that's become a pattern for this Suns team—fighting, clawing, almost winning, then falling short in ways that feel preventable.

But that comeback gets overshadowed because the ending was a mess. Instead of celebrating Phoenix's refusal to quit, we're dissecting foul calls and technical foul standards. Instead of analyzing how the Lakers nearly choked away a massive lead, we're waiting for the NBA's officiating report to explain decisions that shouldn't require explanation if the game was called competently.


What the Lakers should actually worry about

Los Angeles won, but this performance exposes real problems. Shooting 7-for-37 from three isn't variance—it's a structural issue when your offense depends on floor spacing and your best shooters can't find rhythm. The fourth-quarter collapse wasn't just about Phoenix playing well; it was about the Lakers losing composure, making poor decisions, and relying on individual bail-outs instead of executing a coherent offensive system.

LeBron hit the free throws when it mattered, which is what all-time greats do. But needing LeBron to save you from a 20-point blown lead against a Suns team that's been inconsistent all season isn't a sustainable winning formula. The Lakers got away with one tonight. The next time they shoot this poorly and collapse this dramatically, they probably won't be rescued by a favorable whistle in the final seconds.


The last-two-minute report nobody wants to see

The NBA will release its officiating report for the final two minutes, and it's going to be uncomfortable reading regardless of what it says. If the report admits errors, it confirms what everyone watching already knew—the ending was botched. If the report defends the calls, it undermines the credibility of a review process designed to create accountability. Either way, the real story—Phoenix's gutsy comeback and Los Angeles' near-collapse—gets buried under officiating controversy.

That's the frustrating part. This game had real basketball drama: a comeback, a controversial altercation, clutch free throws, and two teams fighting desperately for a win. But the officials inserted themselves into the narrative so aggressively that the actual competition became secondary. That's bad for the players, bad for the fans, and bad for a league that keeps insisting its officiating is getting better while delivering finishes like this.

JO
James O'Sullivan

James is a former english academy coach with 15 years in youth development. He watches football like a chess match—he sees what's about to happen three moves before it does. He writes about young talent, system-building, and why some clubs consistently develop world-class players while others waste potential. He's equally comfortable analyzing a 16-year-old's decision-making as he is critiquing a manager's squad construction. Based in London, he's brutally critical of Premier League hype cycles.