GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 38.2m
26
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

A dominant mid-range clinic defined his highly positive night (+6.4 Total), punishing defenders who dared to give him space. His defensive engagement (+8.3 Def) was surprisingly elite, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest heavily on the perimeter. Operating as a pure scorer rather than a facilitator paid massive dividends for the overall offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.6%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 38.2m -17.1
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 36.4m
24
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.2

Drawing fouls and living at the free-throw line skyrocketed his box score impact (+19.2) despite average field goal volume. He utilized his physical frame to bully mismatches in the post, forcing the defense to collapse and compromise their structure. Consistent hustle (+4.5) and versatile defensive switching cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 14/14 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 36.4m -16.3
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.3

A brutal volume-shooting slump, including a dismal 1-of-7 from deep, dragged his total impact into the red (-2.3). He provided excellent point-of-attack defense (+6.4 Def) and active hustle, but the sheer number of wasted offensive possessions was too much to overcome. His insistence on taking contested pull-up jumpers derailed several critical half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.4
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 34.7m -15.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 31.6m
8
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.3

High-level screen setting and defensive anchoring (+6.7 Def) drove his massive positive impact (+7.3 Total). Even with a dip in scoring volume, his flawless shot selection and offensive rebounding consistently created extra possessions. His ability to wall off the paint completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 31.6m -14.1
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A disastrously brief stint (-6.0 Total) was ruined by forced, out-of-rhythm perimeter shots that killed offensive momentum. He looked completely lost in defensive rotations (-1.2 Def), frequently giving up easy driving lanes. Failing to capitalize on any offensive touches quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total -2.6
Avg player in 7.7m -3.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

Lethal spot-up shooting and elite hustle (+6.0) fueled a spectacular two-way performance (+11.2 Total). He perfectly executed his role as a floor spacer, punishing defensive collapses with timely, in-rhythm three-pointers. Tenacious perimeter defense (+7.8 Def) against primary ball-handlers defined his breakout night.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 32.5m -14.5
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 16.5m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Blanking from the field entirely severely damaged his net impact (-4.4) despite solid effort metrics. While he offered respectable on-ball pressure (+1.9 Def) and hustle, his inability to score allowed defenders to aggressively sag off him. This glaring lack of shooting gravity completely bogged down the team's half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 16.5m -7.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Inefficient finishing around the basket and missed perimeter shots resulted in a slightly negative outing (-0.9). He brought decent energy and adequate defense, but failed to stretch the floor effectively when left open. A distinct lack of offensive rhythm disrupted the spacing for the second unit during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 16.4m -7.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Extreme passivity on offense limited his effectiveness, leading to a negative overall impact (-2.8). He was adequate defensively (+1.8 Def) but completely failed to assert himself as a scoring threat. Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball rendered him a non-factor in the offensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 13.9m -6.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Kept his head above water (+0.2 Total) strictly through surprisingly effective defensive positioning (+4.2 Def) in limited action. His offensive confidence remains completely shattered, as evidenced by hesitant, missed perimeter looks. Crashing the defensive glass saved his brief minutes from being a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 6.6m -2.9
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A completely invisible offensive stint and poor shot selection tanked his brief appearance (-5.5 Total). He provided zero resistance defensively and failed to register any meaningful hustle metrics to justify his floor time. Taking contested jumpers early in the shot clock quickly got him pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 5.5m -2.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 35.4m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.1

A brick-heavy offensive performance cratered his overall value (-9.1), as he repeatedly failed to punish drop coverage. He provided stout point-of-attack defense (+5.2 Def) to partially offset the damage, but the missed opportunities weighed heavily. A distinct pattern of settling for contested floaters doomed his offensive efficiency all night.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 35.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 35.4m -15.8
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.3

Severe negative impact (-13.3) was driven by poor shot selection and a barrage of missed, heavily contested looks inside the arc. While his perimeter stroke remained functional, those empty offensive possessions consistently allowed opponents to leak out in transition. Forcing the issue in isolation matchups repeatedly stalled the team's half-court momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -22.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 34.0m -15.2
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Pascal Siakam 30.9m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

A surprisingly passive offensive approach defined his night, as his scoring volume plummeted compared to his recent dominant stretch. Excellent hustle (+6.0) and solid defensive positioning kept his baseline afloat, but his inability to command the offense left a significant void. Failing to draw defensive gravity ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 30.9m -13.9
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarace Walker 26.7m
13
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Defensive rotations and active closeouts anchored his highly positive impact (+8.8 Def). He continued his recent streak of efficient offensive play by spacing the floor effectively from beyond the arc. His hustle on loose balls ensured Indiana maintained possession advantages during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.8
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 26.7m -11.9
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Isaiah Jackson 19.6m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Flawless shot selection around the rim maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing. However, a lack of rebounding dominance in the paint limited his overall influence, keeping his net impact effectively neutral (-0.1). His minutes were defined entirely by capitalizing on dump-off passes rather than dictating the physical terms inside.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 19.6m -8.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
Jay Huff 28.4m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite rim protection (+9.2 Def) was the absolute defining factor of his highly positive performance. Even with a completely broken perimeter jumper, his ability to consistently deter drivers altered the opponent's entire shot profile. Active hustle plays in the paint further cemented his value as an interior anchor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +9.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 28.4m -12.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 27.0m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite decent hustle metrics (+3.4) and capable floor spacing, his overall impact slipped into the negative (-1.2). He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently getting beat off the bounce during critical defensive rotations. A lack of playmaking connective tissue meant his offensive contributions were strictly limited to spot-up duties.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +43.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 27.0m -12.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.5

Relentless rim pressure and elite hustle (+6.0) drove a massive positive impact (+6.5) during his minutes. He completely ignored his broken three-point shot to repeatedly attack the paint, generating high-quality looks and breaking down the defense. His signature full-court press disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm from the moment the ball was inbounded.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 24.2m -10.9
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Executing his offensive role flawlessly by only taking wide-open looks kept his box score positive. Unfortunately, quiet defensive stretches and a lack of physical presence on the glass during his second-quarter stint allowed second-chance opportunities for the opposition. Those minor defensive lapses ultimately dragged his total impact slightly into the red (-1.2).

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 13.6m -6.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Logged just four seconds of floor time at the end of a quarter. This was purely a situational substitution for defensive or spacing purposes. He did not have enough time to register any measurable impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0