GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 35.6m
30
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.8

An absolute offensive masterclass propelled this elite rating, characterized by lethal perimeter shot-making that stretched the defense to its breaking point. He relentlessly hunted favorable matchups in isolation, combining high-volume scoring with excellent hustle on loose balls. This performance perfectly encapsulated his recent dominant scoring pattern.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +35.6
Avg player in 35.6m -18.8
Impact +16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 31.5m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.0

Searing perimeter efficiency drove a strong positive impact, punishing defenders who dared to go under screens. He controlled the tempo beautifully in the half-court, leveraging his outside shooting threat to open up passing lanes. This offensive surge provided a crucial secondary scoring punch when the primary actions stalled.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 31.5m -16.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.0

Disastrous overall impact was driven by poor floor spacing and an inability to secure the defensive glass during critical stretches. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the paint and stalled the offensive engine. Even with marginal defensive contributions, his minutes were a massive net negative for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 30.3m -15.8
Impact -16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jarace Walker 29.5m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.2

A brutal shooting regression tanked his overall rating, completely snapping his recent streak of hyper-efficient offense. He forced multiple contested perimeter looks that led to long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. Despite excellent defensive rotations and high-motor hustle, the offensive black hole was too deep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 29.5m -15.5
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Tony Bradley 18.6m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Negative impact stemmed entirely from defensive liabilities, as he was repeatedly targeted and exposed in drop coverage. While he converted his few interior looks efficiently, his inability to contest perimeter shooters or protect the weak side bled points. The offensive efficiency was a mirage compared to the structural defensive damage.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.5
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 18.6m -9.7
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 20.3m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Wasted offensive possessions and poor shot quality resulted in a heavily negative overall rating. He struggled to create separation on the wing, settling for contested jumpers that derailed the team's offensive flow. The resulting empty trips allowed the opposition to build momentum against the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 20.3m -10.6
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

A lack of offensive involvement and poor positional rebounding dragged down his overall impact during his rotation stint. He failed to establish deep post position, neutralizing his usually reliable interior finishing. Opponents capitalized on his passive rim protection to generate easy second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 18.6m -9.8
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.6

Uncharacteristic inefficiency inside the arc snapped his recent hot streak and resulted in a slightly negative net impact. He repeatedly drove into crowded paint areas, forcing tough floaters instead of kicking out to open shooters. While his typical hustle was present, the poor shot selection bogged down the transition game.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 16.5m -8.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jay Huff 15.9m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Settling for perimeter jumpers rather than utilizing his size inside dragged his overall impact into the red. The floor-stretching attempts were too inconsistent to punish the defense, leading to empty possessions that stalled momentum. He failed to leverage his frame defensively, allowing smaller players to dictate the physicality.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.9m -8.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Taelon Peter 13.3m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Survived a horrific perimeter shooting night purely through sheer effort and high-level hustle plays. He generated extra possessions by crashing the offensive glass and diving for loose balls, offsetting the damage of his bricked jumpers. The relentless energy kept his net impact slightly above water despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 13.3m -6.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Managed a slightly positive impact in limited garbage-time minutes by taking what the defense gave him. He executed the offensive sets cleanly without forcing the issue, knocking down a spot-up look to keep the scoreboard ticking. It was a brief, low-leverage stint defined by simple, mistake-free basketball.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 5.3m -2.9
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A completely invisible offensive stint hindered the bench unit's rhythm and led to a negative impact score. He failed to collapse the defense or generate any meaningful advantages off the dribble. The lack of aggression allowed the opposing backcourt to rest on defense and conserve energy.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +78.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.5m -2.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 31.8m
14
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.5

Despite a quiet shooting night, his impact stayed above water thanks to relentless activity on the glass and high-level hustle plays. He served as the primary connective tissue in the half-court offense, keeping the ball moving rather than forcing contested looks. His willingness to do the dirty work inside masked a lack of top-end scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 31.8m -16.8
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 29.9m
19
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

Defensive engagement drove his strong positive impact, highlighted by excellent weak-side rotations that disrupted passing lanes. He maintained his recent scoring rhythm through the midrange, avoiding the costly perimeter misses that can drag down efficiency. This two-way balance stabilized the wing rotation during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.2
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 29.9m -15.7
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.3

A severely negative overall rating stems from defensive lapses and a lack of off-ball activity that allowed opponents to capitalize on his minutes. While his perimeter shot selection was decent, his inability to contain point-of-attack penetration bled points on the other end. The playmaking flashes simply couldn't overcome the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 29.5m -15.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S RJ Barrett 28.0m
22
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

High-volume downhill attacking generated a strong box score impact, though his defensive metrics remained largely neutral. He consistently beat primary defenders off the dribble to create advantages, supplementing his scoring with excellent loose-ball recovery. The aggressive shot profile paid off, keeping the offensive engine humming during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 28.0m -14.8
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 25.9m
22
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.3

Absolute dominance in the painted area anchored this massive positive rating, continuing a phenomenal streak of hyper-efficient interior finishing. He punished defensive mismatches on the roll, converting almost every touch into high-value points. Elite rim protection further compounded his value, completely shutting off the opponent's driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/14 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 25.9m -13.7
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Frontcourt spacing and decisive cuts to the rim fueled a solid positive impact during his rotation minutes. He leveraged his shooting gravity to open up driving lanes, punishing late closeouts with smart interior finishes. Active hands in the passing lanes added a valuable defensive layer to his stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 22.1m -11.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Gradey Dick 19.4m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A completely neutral net rating reflects a performance where improved interior finishing was perfectly offset by empty perimeter volume. He finally broke out of a recent scoring slump by attacking closeouts, yet the missed deep balls prevented a true positive swing. Strong positional defense helped keep his head above water despite the outside shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 19.4m -10.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Extended a highly reliable streak of efficient offensive execution by picking his spots perfectly around the basket. His defensive versatility stood out, seamlessly switching onto perimeter threats to stall out opposing actions. This low-mistake, high-effort profile provided excellent stabilizing minutes for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 17.1m -9.0
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 17.0m
7
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.3

Marginal positive impact was salvaged by steady playmaking and point-of-attack defensive pressure. Errant perimeter attempts threatened to drag down his efficiency, but he compensated by orchestrating the offense without turning the ball over. His ability to navigate screens defensively kept the backcourt rotation from springing leaks.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 17.0m -8.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Elite defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays completely drove this positive rating, masking a nearly non-existent offensive footprint. He embraced a lockdown role on the perimeter, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs to disrupt the opponent's rhythm. The sharp drop in scoring volume didn't matter because his energy plays swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 14.8m -7.6
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief, ineffective cameo dragged his rating into the negative as he failed to register any meaningful counting stats or defensive stops. The lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to cheat off him, bogging down the half-court spacing. He essentially ran cardio during a stretch where the team needed a stabilizing veteran presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -78.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.5m -2.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0