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

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
36
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+27.1

High-volume scoring generated a massive baseline impact, but defensive liabilities significantly capped his overall total. He gave back a huge chunk of his offensive production by missing rotations on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 15/17 (88.2%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.1m
Scoring +28.0
Creation +5.2
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +14.0
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Pascal Siakam 44.1m
32
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+34.8

Two-way dominance fueled a highly positive rating, anchored by excellent defensive metrics. He blended efficient perimeter shooting with physical frontcourt play to control his matchups all night.

Shooting
FG 12/25 (48.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/12 (41.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.1m
Scoring +19.7
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +14.2
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Nesmith 26.8m
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.3

Elite hustle plays salvaged an otherwise disastrous offensive performance. Poor shot selection and missed perimeter looks dragged his total into the red, though his energy prevented a total collapse.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -8.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 16.9m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-15.8

Completely stalled the offense by missing every shot he took from the floor. He compounded these empty possessions with poor defensive rotations, bleeding value rapidly during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.2

Disastrous short stint characterized by missed interior looks and defensive lapses. He bled value rapidly in under nine minutes of action by failing to protect the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Obi Toppin 40.0m
20
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.4

Brutal perimeter shot selection severely limited his offensive ceiling, as he failed to connect on numerous deep looks. However, strong defensive rotations and active hustle plays kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 39.0m
15
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Excellent two-way connectivity highlighted by tremendous hustle metrics. He capitalized on his perimeter looks to provide a steady, highly positive presence on the wing.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.3
Defense -2.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc suppressed his overall rating despite decent defensive activity. He couldn't quite overcome the transition costs triggered by his missed perimeter jumpers.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Taelon Peter 16.6m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Showed some flashes defensively but was far too passive on offense to register a positive impact. His inability to generate gravity hurt the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 11.8m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Highly productive backup center minutes driven by stout rim protection. He made the most of his limited offensive touches to swing the momentum in a short burst.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

Provided a slight defensive bump during his brief rotation by clogging the paint. He ultimately lacked the offensive involvement needed to move the needle positively.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Logged exactly one minute of cardio at the end of the game. He did not have time to impact the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -1.9
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
55
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+52.1

Astronomical offensive usage fueled a dominant overall impact. He relentlessly pressured the defense with high-volume interior scoring, carrying the entire offensive engine while maintaining positive defensive value.

Shooting
FG 15/31 (48.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 23/26 (88.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 44.0%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.4m
Scoring +42.3
Creation +6.3
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 43.4m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Incredible hustle plays were the only thing keeping his rating afloat during a marathon shift. His offensive invisibility and poor shot selection ultimately dragged his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.4m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -8.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 39.0m
15
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

Massive defensive impact salvaged a rough shooting night where he bricked every look from deep. His rim protection anchored the unit, entirely offsetting the transition costs of his perimeter misfires.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.3

A staggering drop-off between his baseline production and overall impact suggests significant hidden costs, likely from poorly timed fouls or defensive breakdowns. Despite decent positioning, his inability to generate offensive gravity crippled the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Wiggins 35.8m
23
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

Elite perimeter efficiency drove a highly positive rating. He punished closeouts effectively while providing steady defensive value to complement the primary shot creators.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
26
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.2

Relentless interior scoring and rim pressure drove a stellar overall impact. He completely abandoned the three-point line to attack downhill, pairing that aggression with solid defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.9

Tanked his rating by missing every perimeter look he took. The complete lack of scoring threat allowed defenders to sag off, stalling the offensive flow entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.2

A quiet stint where efficient but incredibly low-volume shooting couldn't overcome a lack of overall floor impact. He operated too passively to swing the momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Failed to generate any meaningful offensive gravity during his brief rotation. He bled value on the defensive end, resulting in a negative rating despite capitalizing on his lone scoring opportunity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Capitalized on his lone offensive touch but immediately gave the value back with poor defensive execution. The stint was simply too short to establish any positive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Barely saw the floor in garbage time. He did not register enough minutes to accumulate meaningful data.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0