Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Sarr 8/19 -4.0
McCollum 5/13 -2.1
Middleton 6/10 +1.4
Coulibaly 4/9 +0.3
Carrington Hard 2/8 -1.0
Whitmore 3/6 -1.2
George 2/6 -1.9
Riley 2/5 -0.7
Vukcevic Hard 1/4 -2.0
Champagnie Hard 0/1 -0.9

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 11/20 +1.7
Mathurin 8/16 +0.4
McConnell 7/9 +5.4
Walker 3/9 -4.1
Jackson Open 5/7 +0.9
Mathews Hard 2/7 -0.7
Robinson-Earl 1/7 -5.5
Huff 5/6 +4.9
Sheppard Hard 3/5 +3.8
Peter Hard 1/2 +1.6
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
IND
33/84 Field Goals 48/92
39.3% Field Goal % 52.2%
7/32 3-Pointers 13/34
21.9% 3-Point % 38.2%
13/20 Free Throws 10/13
65.0% Free Throw % 76.9%
46.3% True Shooting % 60.9%
50 Total Rebounds 57
11 Offensive 10
31 Defensive 40
18 Assists 27
1.06 Assist/TO Ratio 1.69
17 Turnovers 11
6 Steals 9
7 Blocks 8
17 Fouls 16
38 Points in Paint 58
8 Fast Break Pts 14
9 Points off TOs 21
8 Second Chance Pts 14
23 Bench Points 44
4 Largest Lead 33
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Pascal Siakam
24 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 26.4 MIN
+25.19
2
Alex Sarr
24 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 32.7 MIN
+18.93
3
T.J. McConnell
14 PTS · 4 REB · 8 AST · 19.2 MIN
+16.63
4
Jay Huff
12 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 21.8 MIN
+15.23
5
Isaiah Jackson
10 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 18.4 MIN
+12.35
6
Bennedict Mathurin
20 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 34.1 MIN
+11.85
7
CJ McCollum
11 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 29.5 MIN
+9.52
8
Ben Sheppard
9 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 29.2 MIN
+8.61
9
Jeremiah Robinson-Earl
3 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 26.4 MIN
+5.6
10
Garrison Mathews
9 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 21.8 MIN
+5.43
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:16 IND shot clock Team TURNOVER 86–119
Q4 0:40 T. Vukcevic offensive foul TURNOVER (2 TO) 86–119
Q4 0:40 T. Vukcevic offensive FOUL (1 PF) 86–119
Q4 0:47 W. Riley REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 86–119
Q4 0:49 MISS R. Dennis driving finger roll Layup 86–119
Q4 1:10 J. Robinson-Earl REBOUND (Off:2 Def:9) 86–119
Q4 1:12 MISS W. Riley 13' turnaround bank Shot 86–119
Q4 1:27 T. Peter 25' 3PT (3 PTS) (T. Bradley 1 AST) 86–119
Q4 1:45 R. Dennis REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 86–116
Q4 1:48 MISS A. Johnson 27' step back bank 3PT 86–116
Q4 2:02 T. Bradley Layup (5 PTS) (R. Dennis 1 AST) 86–116
Q4 2:16 J. Robinson-Earl REBOUND (Off:2 Def:8) 86–114
Q4 2:20 MISS S. Cooper 26' 3PT 86–114
Q4 2:43 T. Bradley loose ball personal FOUL (1 PF) 86–114
Q4 2:43 TEAM defensive REBOUND 86–114

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

Why this game is worth arguing about
game swinger
Alex Sarr actually won the night
24 points, 9 boards, 1 assist was the line. The lift came from scoring (+13.7), hustle (+10.5), and defense (+5.7), pushing Net Impact to +24.7.
Scoring +13.7
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Hustle +10.5
Rebounding and extra-possession work.
Defense +5.7
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Check the tape
hidden value
CJ McCollum's value was hiding in plain sight
11 points, 1 board, 2 assists undersells it. scoring (+5.4), defense (+4.4), and shot-making (+3.0) pushed his Net Impact to +6.5.
Scoring +5.4
Points, shot value, and miss penalties.
Defense +4.4
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +3.0
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Khris Middleton too hard
12 points, 6 boards, 4 assists was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-9.5) and defense (-1.7), pulling Net Impact down to -1.3.
Turnovers -9.5
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.7
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +3.2
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape
box score lie
The box score sold Jarace Walker too hard
10 points, 7 boards, 1 assist was already a rough line. The real damage was turnovers (-2.4) and defense (-1.1), pulling Net Impact down to -2.9.
Turnovers -2.4
Possessions destroyed by giveaways.
Defense -1.1
Steals, blocks, fouls, and defensive events.
Shot-making +0.8
Makes above expected shot difficulty.
Check the tape

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Scoring volume couldn't mask the negative impact of defensive lapses and ball-stopping. He frequently derailed the offensive flow by holding the ball too long in isolation sets. Getting caught ball-watching on the weak side allowed open backdoor cuts that erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ben Sheppard 29.2m
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.0

Solid connective play was undone by mistimed defensive gambles. He kept the ball moving and hit timely shots, but over-helping in the paint left shooters wide open on the perimeter. The negative net impact reflects the cost of those defensive breakdowns during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +36.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 26.4m
24
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+23.8

Absolute mastery of the midrange and transition game drove a massive positive rating. He consistently beat backpedaling defenders down the floor, generating high-value looks before the defense could set. Excellent weak-side defensive rotations further amplified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +55.2
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +16.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jarace Walker 23.1m
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Clanking outside shots completely derailed his offensive rhythm and overall impact. While his defensive versatility remained a plus, his insistence on firing contested deep balls killed multiple transition opportunities. The inability to punish mismatches inside turned him into a perimeter liability.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jay Huff 21.8m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Elite finishing and rim deterrence created a massive swing in the team's favor. He capitalized on every roll to the basket, punishing late rotations with decisive vertical spacing. A towering presence in drop coverage forced opponents into low-percentage floaters all night.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
3
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

A brutal shooting night completely overshadowed his excellent defensive positioning. He generated stops and secured the glass, but bricking wide-open trail threes allowed the defense to pack the paint. The inability to capitalize on offensive spacing dragged his overall value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +9.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Phenomenal effort plays salvaged a rough perimeter shooting performance. He threw his body around screens and drew crucial offensive fouls, reflected in his massive +6.7 hustle metric. That sheer grit compensated for the missed triples, keeping his overall impact positive.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.4

Relentless ball pressure and elite playmaking completely changed the game's tempo. His staggering +7.7 hustle score reflects a barrage of deflections and loose ball recoveries that ignited the fast break. He surgically dismantled the drop coverage with perfectly timed pocket passes.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +12.5
Creation +4.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.7

High-energy rim-running and shot-altering defense fueled a dominant stint. He generated extra possessions through sheer physical exertion, outworking opposing bigs on the offensive glass. His quick leaping ability deterred multiple drives, anchoring a highly successful second-unit run.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +59.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Capitalized on deep post positioning to generate highly efficient offense in limited minutes. He provided a massive, immovable screen-setting presence that freed up guards at the point of attack. Surviving defensively without fouling kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Struggled to initiate the offense effectively against aggressive ball pressure. He picked up his dribble prematurely on multiple occasions, stalling out half-court sets. The inability to break down his primary defender severely limited the second unit's scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +48.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Blended into the background during a brief, low-impact rotational stint. He executed the basic offensive sets but failed to apply any real pressure on the opposing defense. A lack of disruptive plays on the other end resulted in a nearly neutral overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +48.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Alex Sarr 32.7m
24
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+24.7

Defensive dominance completely anchored his massive positive impact. An elite +16.1 defensive rating highlights his rim protection and switchability, erasing opponent drives at will. Even with a high volume of missed jumpers, his sheer physical presence dictated the terms of engagement inside the paint.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/12 (58.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +10.5
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Bilal Coulibaly 30.7m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite decent defensive metrics, his overall impact cratered due to offensive stagnation and stalled possessions. The perimeter defense couldn't offset the negative value of empty offensive trips where he settled into the background rather than forcing the issue. A distinct lack of aggressiveness defined his floor time against a physical frontline.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S CJ McCollum 29.5m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Brick-heavy perimeter shooting severely limited his effectiveness and killed offensive momentum. Settling for heavily contested pull-ups early in the shot clock resulted in wasted possessions that fueled opponent transition opportunities. A surprisingly solid defensive metric couldn't rescue a night defined by clunky rhythm and forced isolation attempts.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 26.5m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.8

Offensive invisibility and defensive lapses tanked his overall value. While he generated some loose ball recoveries to boost his hustle score, he repeatedly stalled half-court sets by passing up open looks. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage to exploit his slow lateral reactions.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Khris Middleton 25.9m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Flashes of isolation scoring masked underlying defensive bleeding that dragged his net rating into the red. He found his spots offensively to double his recent scoring output, but poor rotation speed allowed opponents to capitalize on the other end. The veteran's inability to contain dribble penetration ultimately outweighed his bucket-getting.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring +9.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Poor shot selection at the rim and from deep drove his negative rating. He struggled to finish through contact, turning potential scoring drives into empty trips that hurt the team's transition defense. A lack of off-ball movement made him easy to guard, stalling the offensive flow whenever he initiated actions.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -41.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Whitmore 15.7m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Tunnel vision on drives negated his scoring efficiency and hurt the team's spacing. He missed several crucial defensive rotations, resulting in a negative defensive impact that outweighed his bucket-getting. His stint was characterized by forcing the issue into heavy traffic rather than making the simple read to the corner.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -72.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

A sharp drop in offensive assertiveness rendered him largely ineffective. He failed to establish deep post position, settling instead for contested perimeter looks that failed to drop. Opposing bigs easily pushed him off his spots, neutralizing his usual interior gravity and rebounding presence.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -65.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Complete offensive zero who survived solely on defensive positioning. He provided solid weak-side help to boost his defensive metrics, but his refusal to look at the basket created spacing nightmares. The inability to punish closeouts allowed defenders to freely double-team the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Riley 10.0m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Managed to stay in the green by playing strictly within his role and avoiding costly mistakes. Though his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, he maintained proper floor spacing and moved the ball quickly. Smart off-ball cutting kept the defense honest even when he wasn't touching the rock.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Burned brief minutes without making any tangible positive mark on either end of the floor. He was entirely passive on the perimeter, failing to attack closeouts or initiate any secondary actions. A lack of physical engagement on screens allowed guards to easily navigate around him.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -57.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
AJ Johnson 5.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Rushed decision-making in limited action severely damaged his impact. He looked out of sync with the second unit, blowing up set plays by cutting to the wrong spots and clogging driving lanes. The game simply looked too fast for him during his brief rotational cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -48.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

A quick hook followed a stint characterized by defensive liabilities. Opposing guards immediately targeted his size disadvantage, blowing past him on straight-line drives to the rim. He failed to generate any offensive advantage to justify keeping him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0