GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 29.8m
18
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.2

Forced the issue offensively, resulting in a highly inefficient shooting night that derailed Indiana's half-court rhythm. His inability to finish through traffic or generate defensive stops (+0.3) compounded the damage of his empty possessions. Despite decent hustle numbers, his poor shot selection was a primary catalyst for opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 29.8m -18.6
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 27.9m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Sizzled from beyond the arc but gave almost all of that value back through porous interior defense and missed assignments. A near-zero defensive impact indicates he was frequently targeted or out of position on rotations. His perimeter scoring masked a lack of physicality when defending the basket.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 27.9m -17.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Jackson 27.1m
9
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Controlled the painted area with aggressive rebounding, giving his team crucial second-chance opportunities. Played strictly within his role by avoiding jump shots and focusing on high-percentage rim finishes. His vertical spacing and screen-setting provided a quiet but steady foundational boost.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 27.1m -17.0
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Nesmith 25.2m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

A barrage of clanked perimeter looks severely damaged his overall value, as he settled for heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock. While he offered some resistance on the wing, the wasted offensive possessions outweighed his stops. Opponents gladly let him shoot his way into a negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 25.2m -15.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quenton Jackson 22.3m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.3

Sparked the second unit with a phenomenal two-way effort, generating an elite +8.0 hustle score through relentless ball-hawking. His defensive pressure disrupted passing lanes and directly fueled his efficient offensive output. Proved to be a massive net-positive by combining smart shot selection with high-octane energy.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +8.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 22.3m -14.0
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Ben Sheppard 28.7m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

A complete lack of touch from the perimeter destroyed his offensive gravity and allowed defenders to pack the paint. His inability to knock down open catch-and-shoot looks resulted in empty trips and a plunging impact score. Failed to compensate for his shooting woes with any meaningful defensive playmaking.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 28.7m -17.9
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
RayJ Dennis 25.7m
8
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.4

Completely torpedoed the offense with a high-volume, low-efficiency shooting display that stalled multiple possessions. Forcing up heavily contested looks in traffic allowed the defense to leak out for easy transition points. While he competed hard on loose balls, his catastrophic shot selection was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -50.5
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 25.7m -16.0
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jay Huff 21.6m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Salvaged a disastrous shooting performance by anchoring the drop coverage and contesting everything at the rim (+4.6 defense). His insistence on launching missed trail threes nearly tanked his value, but his rim protection kept him in the green. Needs to recognize when the jumper isn't falling and roll hard to the basket instead.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 21.6m -13.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Mac McClung 19.0m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Surprisingly impactful at the point of attack, racking up a +6.7 defensive score by fighting through screens and pestering ball-handlers. However, his shot selection from deep was highly questionable, short-circuiting the offense with rushed perimeter attempts. His defensive grit nearly balanced out his erratic trigger finger.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 19.0m -11.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Struggled to find the pace of the game during his eight minutes, drifting offensively and failing to register a single hustle stat. His missed perimeter look and lack of defensive engagement led to a quick negative swing. Looked hesitant to attack closeouts, settling for passive ball reversals instead.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 8.1m -5.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Provided a brief but effective cameo in the frontcourt, converting his only look and sealing off the glass. Kept things simple by operating exclusively in the dunker spot during his five minutes of action. A perfectly functional stint that didn't hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 37.7m
18
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.5

Put on an absolute clinic in two-way activity, generating a massive +8.9 hustle score through relentless ball pressure and deflections. His refusal to settle for threes resulted in high-percentage rim attacks that broke down the defense. Completely dictated the tempo by suffocating opposing ball-handlers and living in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +8.9
Defense +9.8
Raw total +37.1
Avg player in 37.7m -23.6
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Johnson 33.3m
22
pts
13
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.5

Dominated the game flow by pairing high-efficiency interior finishing with elite defensive disruption. His massive +8.7 defensive score highlights his ability to blow up actions at the point of attack and secure the glass. Acted as the primary engine for Atlanta's transition attack, turning stops into immediate offense.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 33.3m -20.9
Impact +12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Overcame a frigid night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking closeouts and generating chaos on the defensive end. A stellar +7.7 hustle rating reflects his constant off-ball movement and willingness to dive for loose balls. His aggressive point-of-attack defense masked his perimeter shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +7.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 32.1m -20.2
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

Anchored the interior defense effectively, using his length to alter shots and rack up a +6.9 defensive impact. While his perimeter stroke wasn't fully dialed in, his rim protection deterred drives and forced contested mid-range pull-ups. Kept the offense afloat with steady, efficient paint touches.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.9
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 23.5m -14.7
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite hitting three triples, his overall impact slipped into the red due to empty possessions and missed two-point attempts. He struggled to generate high-value looks inside the arc, neutralizing his perimeter spacing. A lack of secondary playmaking further limited his offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 22.6m -14.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Luke Kennard 27.3m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

An inability to find his rhythm from deep completely tanked his offensive utility, leading to a steep negative impact. Without his gravity as a shooter, his lack of defensive resistance and low hustle metrics became glaring liabilities. Opponents targeted him in space, capitalizing on his sluggish lateral movement.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 27.3m -17.2
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Stretched the floor surprisingly well, hitting a pair of crucial triples that pulled opposing bigs out of the paint. His +5.0 defensive impact was driven by disciplined pick-and-roll coverage and timely weak-side rotations. Provided a steady, stabilizing presence on both ends without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 25.5m -15.9
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.4

Delivered a flawless shooting display off the bench, punishing defensive lapses with perfect execution from beyond the arc. His elite shot selection maximized his brief time on the floor, driving a highly efficient +8.4 total impact. Kept the ball moving crisply while remaining a constant spot-up threat.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 16.7m -10.6
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Provided decent energy in short bursts, highlighted by a solid +3.4 hustle score on the glass and in scramble situations. However, poorly timed perimeter attempts stalled the offensive flow and dragged his overall rating into the red. Needs to cut out the long-range attempts and stick to his strengths as a rim-runner.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 15.9m -9.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Logged purely rotational garbage-time minutes at the end of the contest without registering any meaningful statistics. His slight negative score simply reflects the team losing a quick possession battle while he was on the floor. Served as a warm body to close out the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Made the most of his extremely brief appearance by securing a quick bucket and flashing active hands on defense. A +1.6 defensive score in under two minutes shows excellent engagement in garbage time. Instantly capitalized on his lone touch around the rim.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 1.4m -0.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 1.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Rushed a perimeter look during his brief late-game cameo, resulting in a quick empty possession. His impact score dipped due to the missed shot and lack of time to make up for it elsewhere. Showed minor hustle but couldn't find the bottom of the net.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
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
-0.8

Burned a minute of clock at the tail end of the game without factoring into the play on either end. An invisible stint that yielded a fractional negative rating due to the opponent scoring late. Merely ate up the final seconds of a decided game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0