GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 38.2m
18
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.2

Hidden mistakes like ill-timed fouls and poor spacing dragged his overall impact into the red. Despite extending his streak of efficient shooting nights, his off-ball defensive lapses gave away too many easy angles.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 38.2m -18.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 37.9m
32
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+14.0

Heavy offensive usage and excellent defensive versatility (+8.5) drove a massive overall rating. While his perimeter touch was lacking, his constant pressure on the mid-post forced defensive collapses that benefited the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +4.6
Defense +8.5
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 37.9m -18.7
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 33.8m
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Relentless energy and elite hustle metrics salvaged a wildly inefficient shooting night. By generating extra possessions and fighting through screens, he managed to stay in the green despite bricking seven attempts from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 45.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +9.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 33.8m -16.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Jackson 29.3m
21
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.3

A sudden eruption of interior dominance fueled an astronomical net rating. Capitalizing on weak interior defense, he converted high-percentage looks at the rim while simultaneously anchoring the paint on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +33.8
Avg player in 29.3m -14.5
Impact +19.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Quenton Jackson 19.7m
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

Offensive hesitancy limited his effectiveness during a solid rotational stint. Though he provided active hands in the passing lanes, passing up open looks stalled the team's half-court momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 19.7m -9.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 20.1m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Faded into the background offensively, snapping a run of steady secondary scoring. His inability to create separation on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 20.1m -10.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jay Huff 13.8m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Completely abandoned his recent scoring punch but remained valuable through stellar rim deterrence (+4.7). His verticality and positioning in the paint saved multiple possessions, keeping his overall impact positive despite an offensive goose egg.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 13.8m -6.8
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to find the pace of the game during his limited minutes. A lack of assertiveness on the glass and slow defensive rotations resulted in a net negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 12.8m -6.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Taelon Peter 10.6m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Failed to replicate his recent efficiency, looking out of sync in half-court sets. Poor defensive awareness and a lack of hustle plays compounded his struggles to find an offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 10.6m -5.2
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Forced several contested looks in a rushed attempt to make an immediate impact. This poor shot selection quickly torpedoed his rating during a very short window of opportunity.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -72.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 7.8m -3.9
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a brief but stable presence in the middle during non-starter minutes. Executed his role perfectly by finishing his lone opportunity and setting solid screens to free up shooters.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 7.1m -3.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Delivered a steady, mistake-free shift to bridge the gap between rotation units. Sound positional defense and smart ball movement yielded a marginally positive return in limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +53.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 6.5m -3.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Burned through a fleeting appearance with rushed execution. A quick missed shot and defensive misstep immediately pushed his net rating into the negatives.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -140.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Gary Trent Jr. 33.6m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Perimeter inefficiency completely derailed his overall impact, as a barrage of missed threes offset his active hustle metrics. This prolonged slump of sub-40% shooting makes him a liability when spacing the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 33.6m -16.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 32.2m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Elite rim protection and defensive positioning (+10.2) salvaged a quiet offensive night. While his shot volume remains concerningly low during this recent slump, his ability to deter paint penetration kept his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +10.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 32.2m -16.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
33
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+19.1

Unstoppable interior finishing drove a massive positive impact score, overwhelming the defensive frontcourt with high-percentage looks. His ability to anchor the defense while carrying the offensive load created a staggering two-way advantage.

Shooting
FG 14/21 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.6
Raw total +34.8
Avg player in 31.7m -15.7
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S AJ Green 29.3m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.9

Despite providing reliable floor spacing from the perimeter, defensive limitations severely punished his overall rating. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his outside shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.5
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 29.3m -14.4
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 28.4m
10
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.2

A sharp regression from his recent scoring tear left a gaping hole in the secondary offense. Even with strong point-of-attack defense and active hands generating hustle points, his inability to initiate quality sets tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +4.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 28.4m -14.0
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
Cole Anthony 22.9m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.3

Empty offensive production masked underlying issues with game management and defensive rotations. His tendency to surrender driving lanes negated the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 22.9m -11.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Passive offensive involvement limited his ability to positively influence the game flow. Though he provided steady weak-side help and solid hustle metrics, the lack of aggressive shot creation resulted in a slight negative return.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 20.9m -10.4
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Kuzma 16.3m
15
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

An aggressive scoring mentality fueled a highly efficient offensive stint, breaking him out of a recent funk. He attacked mismatches decisively in the mid-range, generating a strong positive impact despite minimal hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 16.3m -8.1
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 15.8m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Struggled to establish his usual post presence, settling too often for contested perimeter looks. This sharp departure from his recent high-volume scoring left the second unit devoid of its primary anchor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.8m -7.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Completely marginalized during a brief rotation stint, failing to record a single field goal attempt. His lack of physical imposition in the paint rendered him an offensive zero.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 5.1m -2.5
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Bleeding value in garbage time, defensive miscommunications quickly compounded his negative rating. He offered zero resistance on the perimeter during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 3.7m -1.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0