GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 36.1m
23
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
-11.7

High-usage creation yielded impressive counting stats, but his minutes were plagued by defensive miscommunications and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. The sheer volume of his offensive load masked how much value he gave back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 36.1m -18.1
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Ben Sheppard 35.0m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Punished defensive rotations by decisively knocking down catch-and-shoot opportunities to double his usual scoring output. Smart off-ball movement and disciplined closeouts on the perimeter cemented a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 35.0m -17.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jarace Walker 32.2m
6
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.0

An uncharacteristically erratic offensive showing snapped his streak of highly efficient shooting performances. Forced floaters and poor spacing decisions bogged down the half-court offense, leading to a severely negative overall impact despite adequate defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 32.2m -16.1
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Aaron Nesmith 32.1m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

A high-energy performance was ultimately derailed by poor shot selection and forced perimeter attempts early in the clock. His relentless hustle in transition couldn't fully compensate for the empty offensive possessions that handed momentum back to the opponent.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 32.1m -16.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaiah Jackson 20.4m
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Continued his reliable trend of high-percentage interior finishing by feasting on dump-off passes. However, struggles to anchor the pick-and-roll defense allowed guards to turn the corner, resulting in a marginally negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 20.4m -10.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Completely controlled the glass and anchored the interior defense, erasing multiple opponent drives at the rim. His elite positioning and rebounding dominance generated massive value, rendering his inefficient finishing around the basket largely irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.1
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 23.5m -11.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jay Huff 17.7m
16
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Warped the opposing defensive scheme by consistently popping out to the perimeter and draining deep spot-up attempts. His floor-stretching gravity opened up driving lanes for the guards, driving a highly efficient and impactful offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 17.7m -8.9
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Taelon Peter 16.5m
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

Struggled to find the rhythm that had defined his recent efficient stretch, settling for contested perimeter looks. While he kept the ball moving adequately, his inability to threaten the defense as a scorer allowed opponents to clog the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 16.5m -8.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tony Bradley 13.6m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Provided a sturdy, if unspectacular, physical presence during his brief stint in the rotation. Focused primarily on setting hard screens and occupying space in the paint, resulting in a perfectly neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 13.6m -6.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Made his presence felt immediately on the defensive end by blowing up pick-and-roll actions and securing tough rebounds in traffic. The brief rotational stint was a net positive purely due to his disruptive energy on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 7.7m -3.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Looked overwhelmed by the pace of play during a brief cameo, rushing his offensive reads and misfiring on his attempts. The lack of defensive resistance or playmaking contribution quickly led to a highly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
32
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

High-volume shot creation drove a massive offensive rating, but defensive lapses and likely empty-calorie possessions dragged his overall net impact down to earth. His willingness to hunt his own shot from deep kept the defense stretched, though it occasionally compromised the team's transition defense.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 35.4m -17.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Terance Mann 35.1m
15
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.8

Broke out of a prolonged offensive drought by aggressively attacking closeouts and finding teammates in rotation. While his perimeter defense and hustle metrics were solid, a handful of inefficient mid-range attempts kept his overall net impact grounded.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 35.1m -17.6
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 33.6m
18
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+22.5

Completely anchored the interior with a dominant defensive performance that suffocated opposing drives. His elite rim protection and active hustle metrics drove a massive positive swing, proving his value goes far beyond an unexpected scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -0.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense +12.7
Raw total +39.3
Avg player in 33.6m -16.8
Impact +22.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Noah Clowney 29.6m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Shattered his recent scoring slump with a highly efficient offensive outburst that masked underlying structural issues during his minutes. Despite the massive uptick in scoring gravity, poor rotational positioning on the other end resulted in a negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.0%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 29.6m -14.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Cam Thomas 5.6m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

A brief, ineffective stint highlighted by forced shots and a complete lack of off-ball engagement. Continuing a brutal offensive slump, his inability to generate clean looks quickly earned him a spot back on the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 5.6m -2.8
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Capitalized on a rare rotational opportunity by catching fire from the perimeter and stretching the floor effectively. His active hands in passing lanes and timely closeouts supplemented the sudden scoring burst, yielding a sturdy positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 27.4m -13.8
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

Offensive rhythm completely collapsed due to settling for contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, cratering his overall net impact despite decent individual defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 24.4m -12.3
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 21.0m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Faded into the background offensively, passing up open looks and stalling the team's momentum. While he brought commendable energy to loose-ball situations, his lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him and crowd the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 21.0m -10.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Overcame a rough finishing night around the basket by dominating the physical battles in the paint. His stout post defense and ability to generate second-chance opportunities through sheer positioning kept his minutes highly productive.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +43.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 14.4m -7.2
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Egor Dëmin 13.4m
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Threw up a string of ill-advised, rushed perimeter shots that short-circuited the half-court offense. However, exceptional weak-side defensive rotations and disciplined closeouts salvaged his stint and prevented a total lineup collapse.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +7.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 13.4m -6.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0