GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 38.0m
27
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.8

Dominated the mid-post with exceptional footwork, consistently drawing double teams and making the right read. His massive hustle metrics reflect a willingness to battle for loose balls and dictate the physical tone of the frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +8.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 38.0m -18.9
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 35.1m
31
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.9

An absolute flamethrower from the perimeter, he punished drop coverage and late closeouts to nearly double his usual scoring output. His relentless motor on the wing also translated to key defensive stops, making him the defining force of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 35.1m -17.4
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Quenton Jackson 31.1m
25
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+27.5

A masterclass in two-way dominance, orchestrating the offense flawlessly while terrorizing passing lanes on defense. He shattered his usual scoring average by relentlessly attacking the rim in transition, driving an astronomical net positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +28.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +42.9
Avg player in 31.1m -15.4
Impact +27.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarace Walker 29.9m
6
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.1

Offensive rhythm vanished as he settled for contested jumpers instead of attacking the paint. Despite flashing solid weak-side rim protection, his inability to convert open looks severely handicapped the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 29.9m -14.8
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Isaiah Jackson 20.9m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Capitalized on interior mismatches by aggressively rolling to the rim and forcing the defense to foul. His vertical spacing and weak-side rim protection anchored the interior, continuing a streak of highly efficient offensive performances.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 20.9m -10.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Flew around the court with reckless abandon, generating extra possessions through sheer effort and high-level hustle. Unfortunately, his erratic offensive decision-making and rushed shots prevented those hustle plays from translating into positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 22.9m -11.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Tony Bradley 18.1m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Provided a sturdy physical presence in the paint, setting bruising screens that freed up the guards. However, his heavy feet in drop coverage allowed guards to walk into rhythm jumpers, neutralizing his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 18.1m -9.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
RayJ Dennis 16.9m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

Pounded the air out of the ball and settled for low-percentage floaters late in the shot clock. His inability to break down the primary point-of-attack defense led to stagnant possessions and a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 16.9m -8.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 12.9m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Struggled to find any separation off the ball, completely neutralizing his typical catch-and-shoot threat. The lack of scoring gravity allowed his defender to aggressively stunt and recover, stalling the offensive flow during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 12.9m -6.3
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Made his presence felt entirely through grit, diving for loose balls and keeping possessions alive with relentless energy. While his shot wasn't falling, his willingness to do the dirty work in the trenches kept his overall impact slightly in the green.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 6.3m -3.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Looked completely out of sync during a brief cameo, failing to record a single positive hustle or defensive metric. A rushed perimeter attempt and poor spacing quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 4.5m -2.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 3.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Barely broke a sweat in a fleeting rotation appearance, unable to establish deep post position. His total lack of offensive involvement was a stark contrast to his recent string of highly efficient scoring nights.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 3.3m -1.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless off-ball movement and elite hustle metrics defined his shift, constantly keeping possessions alive. He capitalized on broken plays to generate easy looks, providing a steadying presence during chaotic stretches of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 35.3m -17.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
20
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.7

Elite defensive activity set the tone, completely neutralizing his primary matchup on the wing. His ability to generate high-value possessions through relentless hustle plays masked some perimeter shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +10.7
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 34.4m -17.0
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A massive offensive surge fueled his positive box score impact, aggressively attacking the rim to break out of a recent scoring slump. However, defensive lapses and empty possessions on the other end dragged his overall net rating down to neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 31.8m -15.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Draymond Green 29.7m
8
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite anchoring the defense with his usual vocal leadership and timely rotations, his overall impact cratered. A lack of offensive gravity and forced passes into traffic stalled the half-court execution whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 29.7m -14.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Stephen Curry 29.1m
24
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.6

Uncharacteristic shot selection and a heavy volume of forced perimeter looks severely depressed his offensive efficiency. Opponents aggressively trapped him off screens, leading to disrupted timing and a negative overall impact despite his constant off-ball gravity.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 4/16 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 41.4%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 29.1m -14.4
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Moses Moody 16.1m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

A sharp drop-off in scoring aggression from his previous outing limited his offensive footprint. While he maintained solid positional defense, his hesitancy to attack closeouts stalled the second-unit momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +44.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 16.1m -8.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Buddy Hield 15.4m
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.2

Cold shooting from beyond the arc completely negated his floor-spacing value in a brief rotation stint. Without the threat of his jumper falling, the offense bogged down, resulting in a steep negative swing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 15.4m -7.6
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Al Horford 15.2m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Veteran positioning and timely rim contests buoyed his defensive metrics during a short stint. However, an inability to stretch the floor or finish through contact inside resulted in a slightly negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 15.2m -7.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Quinten Post 12.8m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Capitalized on interior mismatches to generate high-percentage looks around the basket. Defensive struggles against quicker bigs in the pick-and-roll erased the value of his efficient offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 12.8m -6.3
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gui Santos 11.2m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Perfect execution on limited touches kept his offensive efficiency flawless, even as his usage plummeted compared to recent games. He found soft spots in the zone defense, though missed rotations on the other end capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 11.2m -5.5
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Failed to register his usual disruptive defensive presence, getting caught on screens and losing his man in transition. His complete lack of offensive production allowed defenders to freely roam and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 8.8m -4.4
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1