GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Ethan Thompson 30.6m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Relentless on-ball pressure and high-motor closeouts generated a robust +7.3 defensive impact that kept his overall rating afloat. While his outside shot refused to fall, he compensated by diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes to boost his hustle metrics. The gritty, blue-collar approach perfectly masked his perimeter shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.3
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 30.6m -17.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarace Walker 29.3m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

Blistering perimeter shot-making inflated his box score metrics, but hidden costs elsewhere dragged his total impact into the negative. A pattern of late defensive rotations and poor screen navigation allowed opponents to immediately answer his offensive outbursts. The scoring punch was undeniable, yet the overall floor game lacked two-way stability.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 29.3m -9.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kobe Brown 26.9m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.0

Errant perimeter shooting and disjointed offensive spacing severely punished his overall net rating. By settling for low-percentage outside looks rather than attacking closeouts, he bailed out the defense repeatedly. A passable +2.8 defensive rating was completely swallowed by the offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 26.9m -10.9
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quenton Jackson 26.9m
16
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.4

A high-volume, low-efficiency shot profile capped his overall value despite generating significant raw production. Continually forcing contested looks from beyond the arc limited the offense's ceiling and allowed the defense to reset. He salvaged a positive rating purely through sheer persistence and secondary playmaking.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense -1.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 26.9m -10.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Micah Potter 23.7m
13
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Floor-stretching from the frontcourt opened up crucial driving lanes, making him a highly effective offensive catalyst. Beyond the perimeter gravity, his exceptional positional awareness yielded a +9.9 defensive score. This dual-threat capability of protecting the paint while bombing from deep defined a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 23.7m -17.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Jay Huff 24.3m
8
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Elite rim deterrence and drop-coverage discipline anchored a massive +11.4 defensive impact score. This defensive mastery was absolutely necessary to offset a brutal perimeter shooting performance where he repeatedly bricked trailing threes. His willingness to battle for extra possessions ultimately kept his total rating comfortably positive.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +12.1
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 24.3m -18.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
Taelon Peter 22.6m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Firing blanks from three-point range stalled offensive momentum and dragged his net impact into the red. Without the threat of an outside shot, defenders sagged off, suffocating the half-court spacing during his minutes. A quiet defensive showing failed to bridge the gap created by the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 22.6m -10.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 21.1m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.8

An absolute offensive freeze-out torpedoed his value, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt. Forcing out-of-rhythm jumpers short-circuited several possessions and handed momentum right back to the opponent. With minimal defensive resistance to fall back on, the scoreless outing proved highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 21.1m -13.8
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Obi Toppin 19.4m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Settling for static perimeter jumpers rather than utilizing his elite vertical spacing severely suppressed his effectiveness. By drifting around the arc and clanking outside looks, he bailed out the interior defense and wasted transition opportunities. The lack of characteristic above-the-rim energy resulted in a highly damaging negative shift.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 19.4m -14.8
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.7

Severe offensive limitations were exposed as he failed to connect on any of his shot attempts, resulting in a disastrous negative total impact. The inability to finish through contact or space the floor turned him into an offensive liability. While he offered mild resistance defensively, it was nowhere near enough to cover the scoring vacuum.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 15.2m -14.5
Impact -17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 39.5m
16
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.5

Elite point-of-attack defense defined this outing, generating a stellar +11.3 defensive impact score. By completely abandoning the three-point shot to focus on slashing, he maintained offensive rhythm without settling for bad looks. This disciplined shot profile combined with high-energy closeouts made him a highly effective two-way presence.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.1
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 39.5m -9.1
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tyrese Maxey 38.5m
32
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+27.4

Sheer offensive volume brute-forced a massive +23.4 box score impact, even as his perimeter efficiency completely cratered. The willingness to keep firing through a brutal shooting slump stretched the defense just enough to eventually open up driving lanes. His relentless rim pressure ultimately salvaged what could have been a disastrous offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 38.5m -1.3
Impact +27.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paul George 33.5m
21
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers capped his overall ceiling despite a strong baseline contribution. His shot selection leaned heavily toward isolation pull-ups, which yielded decent results but limited offensive flow. Still, his length and positional awareness provided a reliable +6.7 defensive boost on the wing.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +10.4
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 33.5m -18.7
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 31.7m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.0

Defensive intensity set the tone, creating a massive +12.5 defensive impact that anchored his overall rating. His relentless activity on the margins translated into elite hustle metrics, completely overshadowing a mediocre perimeter shooting night. The aggressive downhill attacking pattern consistently put pressure on the rim and forced defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +7.2
Defense +13.3
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 31.7m -12.7
Impact +17.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
S Adem Bona 19.4m
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Offensive invisibility dragged down his net rating, as a lack of finishing opportunities rendered him a non-factor on that end. He managed to carve out a positive defensive footprint (+4.3) through active rim protection and physical positioning. However, the inability to establish a reliable pick-and-roll threat severely limited his floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 19.4m -8.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.4

Dominant paint enforcement fueled a superb +13.1 total rating, anchored by physically overwhelming the opposing frontcourt. Even with uncharacteristically sloppy finishing around the basket, his massive rebounding radius and +9.8 defensive impact dictated the terms of engagement. The sheer volume of extra possessions he generated easily erased the cost of his missed putbacks.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +13.3
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 28.6m -16.7
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

Clanking open spot-up looks derailed his offensive value and sent his total impact plummeting. Without his perimeter shot falling, his inability to generate secondary creation left the offense stagnant during his shifts. A completely neutral defensive showing offered no saving grace for the wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 16.4m -13.1
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Struggling to find any rhythm as a finisher, his offensive impact flatlined completely. He did manage to salvage some value through active weak-side rotations, producing a modest +3.2 defensive score. Ultimately, the empty offensive trips outweighed his rotational discipline.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 16.2m -13.4
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

A passive approach to finding his spots resulted in a hollow offensive shift that dragged his net rating into the red. He failed to leverage his athleticism in transition, settling instead for contested looks in the half-court. Minor contributions in hustle metrics weren't nearly enough to offset the lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 16.2m -12.1
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1