Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 166 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 8/18 -1.7
Ivey 5/10 +1.0
Duren Open 6/10 -0.7
Robinson Hard 2/10 -5.2
LeVert Hard 5/9 +4.5
Thompson Open 6/9 +1.8
Harris Hard 4/8 +1.3
Stewart 4/6 +2.5
Jenkins Hard 1/2 +1.0
Green Open 1/2 -0.3

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Nembhard Hard 4/14 -4.0
Mathurin 3/13 -6.9
McConnell 8/12 +3.0
Siakam 7/12 +1.0
Walker 8/10 +9.6
Huff 3/8 +0.1
Robinson-Earl 4/6 +3.7
Jackson Open 2/4 -1.1
Sheppard Hard 0/3 -3.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
IND
42/84 Field Goals 39/82
50.0% Field Goal % 47.6%
9/25 3-Pointers 13/31
36.0% 3-Point % 41.9%
29/37 Free Throws 26/34
78.4% Free Throw % 76.5%
60.8% True Shooting % 60.3%
58 Total Rebounds 43
14 Offensive 5
31 Defensive 25
24 Assists 22
1.41 Assist/TO Ratio 1.69
15 Turnovers 13
8 Steals 11
4 Blocks 4
27 Fouls 27
58 Points in Paint 44
15 Fast Break Pts 11
18 Points off TOs 26
12 Second Chance Pts 13
47 Bench Points 58
19 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Pascal Siakam
24 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 34.6 MIN
+20.78
2
Jarace Walker
21 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 27.1 MIN
+20.01
3
T.J. McConnell
16 PTS · 1 REB · 5 AST · 22.4 MIN
+19.68
4
Cade Cunningham
24 PTS · 11 REB · 6 AST · 35.8 MIN
+15.29
5
Caris LeVert
19 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 22.5 MIN
+14.89
6
Ausar Thompson
13 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 30.5 MIN
+14.11
7
Jalen Duren
17 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 30.3 MIN
+10.68
8
Jaden Ivey
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 11.5 MIN
+9.6
9
Andrew Nembhard
12 PTS · 1 REB · 6 AST · 36.9 MIN
+9.35
10
Tobias Harris
12 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 25.8 MIN
+7.42
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM defensive REBOUND 122–117
Q4 0:02 MISS J. Walker 27' pullup 3PT 122–117
Q4 0:07 C. LeVert Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 122–117
Q4 0:07 C. LeVert Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 121–117
Q4 0:07 J. Walker shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (LeVert 2 FT) 120–117
Q4 0:08 TEAM defensive REBOUND 120–117
Q4 0:11 MISS B. Mathurin 24' 3PT 120–117
Q4 0:12 C. Cunningham Free Throw 2 of 2 (24 PTS) 120–117
Q4 0:12 TEAM offensive REBOUND 119–117
Q4 0:12 MISS C. Cunningham Free Throw 1 of 2 119–117
Q4 0:12 A. Nembhard take personal FOUL (4 PF) (Cunningham 2 FT) 119–117
Q4 0:15 A. Nembhard driving finger roll Layup (12 PTS) 119–117
Q4 0:25 C. Cunningham turnaround Hook (23 PTS) 119–115
Q4 0:48 I. Jackson Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 117–115
Q4 0:48 I. Jackson Free Throw 1 of 2 (8 PTS) 117–114

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 36.9m
12
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.1

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish at the rim severely dragged down his overall impact despite excellent point-of-attack defense. He consistently drove into heavy traffic, resulting in blocked shots and wasted possessions that bailed out the defense. While his defensive pressure disrupted the opposing backcourt, his offensive inefficiency was simply too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +7.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 34.6m
24
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.2

Dominated both ends of the floor with a masterclass in two-way efficiency, driven by elite defensive versatility and relentless rebounding. His patient post-ups generated high-quality looks against single coverage, punishing mismatches with methodical footwork. A relentless motor on the glass secured extra possessions and cemented his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 10/14 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +18.4
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.3
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

A disastrous shooting performance completely tanked his overall value, defined by a steady stream of forced, contested jumpers early in the clock. These missed shots acted as live-ball turnovers, consistently fueling opponent fast breaks and leaving the defense scrambling. Poor off-ball awareness compounded the damage, as he was repeatedly beaten on backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaiah Jackson 23.7m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Maintained his streak of efficient finishing, but defensive miscommunications and poor positioning limited his overall effectiveness. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage, allowing opposing guards to easily access the midrange for uncontested pull-ups. While his rim-running provided vertical spacing, his inability to secure defensive rebounds gave the opposition costly second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ben Sheppard 23.4m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.2

Completely vanished offensively, failing to connect on any of his perimeter attempts and severely damaging the team's spacing. His inability to knock down open catch-and-shoot looks allowed the defense to aggressively double the post without consequence. The lack of offensive gravity drove his impact deep into the negative, rendering him a liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.5

A scorching hot shooting night from beyond the arc defined his highly impactful performance, punishing late closeouts with deadly precision. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown, stretching the floor and opening up driving lanes for his teammates. His pristine shot selection ensured that nearly every attempt was a high-quality look within the flow of the offense.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 105.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +19.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+11.4

Completely controlled the tempo with relentless drives and elite playmaking, collapsing the defense to generate high-quality looks on nearly every possession. Tenacious full-court pressure defined his defensive impact, forcing opposing guards into rushed decisions and costly turnovers. His ability to dictate the pace of the game resulted in a massive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 17.9m
11
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Provided crucial floor-spacing from the center position by knocking down key perimeter shots, drawing opposing big men away from the rim. This gravity created valuable real estate for cutters, unlocking the half-court offense. Solid rim protection and disciplined verticality on the other end ensured his overall impact remained firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Capitalized on limited minutes with highly efficient spot-up shooting, finding soft spots in the zone defense to keep the offense ticking. He converted open looks when the ball swung his way, maximizing his low-usage role. However, a lack of defensive rebounding and poor closeouts prevented his impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Offered very little resistance in the paint during his short time on the floor, allowing opponents to easily navigate around his drop coverage. A failure to contest shots at the rim resulted in uncontested layups and easy points in the paint. A complete lack of offensive involvement further highlighted his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -84.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.1

Failed to register any meaningful statistics during a brief, ineffective stint, struggling to find open space against tight perimeter coverage. His inability to get open off screens rendered him a non-factor in the half-court offense. Defensive liabilities and missed rotations forced the coaching staff to quickly pull him from the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 35.8m
24
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+18.0

Heavy offensive usage yielded massive raw production, but his impact was heavily muted by inefficient volume shooting and forced passes into traffic. He consistently drove into crowded paint areas late in the shot clock, resulting in empty possessions that bailed out the defense. His ability to command double teams was evident, but poor shot quality limited his true effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +16.1
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +11.1
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 33.7m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

A barrage of missed perimeter shots severely crippled the half-court offense and tanked his overall value. Opponents aggressively chased him off the line, forcing rushed attempts that frequently led to long rebounds and transition opportunities going the other way. Even with solid hustle metrics, his inability to punish defensive rotations defined this disastrous outing.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 30.5m
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.9

Elite hustle metrics and relentless transition running drove his positive impact, capitalizing on live-ball turnovers to fuel his scoring surge. However, his overall value was capped by poor spacing in the half-court, allowing his defender to aggressively double the post. His ability to finish through contact on fast breaks defined his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 30.3m
17
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Inability to anchor the drop coverage in the pick-and-roll completely erased the value of his highly efficient interior finishing. Opposing guards consistently exploited his late contests at the rim, turning his defensive lapses into easy floaters. Despite extending his streak of efficient shooting, his defensive positioning compromised the team's half-court scheme.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +14.3
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 25.8m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

A steady diet of contested midrange jumpers and poor shot selection dragged his overall impact into the negative. While he found some success in isolation, his failure to rotate on the weak side allowed easy opponent layups. The defining pattern was his tendency to stall the offense, holding the ball too long against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +9.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 22.5m
19
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Aggressive point-of-attack defense and perfectly timed gambles in passing lanes fueled a highly positive overall impact. He capitalized on these defensive stops by aggressively hunting mismatches in transition, resulting in a massive scoring surge compared to his recent average. His ability to break down the defense off the dribble during the second quarter completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Disciplined rim protection and physical screen-setting anchored his positive impact without requiring high offensive usage. His defensive rotations were sharp, consistently denying easy entry passes and altering shots in the restricted area. Efficient shot selection ensured he maximized his touches, taking only what the defense conceded.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jaden Ivey 11.5m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Injected instant offense with aggressive downhill drives that consistently collapsed the defense. His ability to finish through contact in the paint drove his positive impact, forcing opposing bigs into foul trouble. A focused approach to attacking closeouts kept the perimeter defenders on their heels, creating a steady stream of high-quality looks.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.3

Failed to make a meaningful imprint on the game as his offensive involvement vanished and floor spacing suffered. Despite showing flashes of energy through hustle plays, his inability to command defensive attention allowed opponents to clog the paint. A lack of awareness off the ball resulted in missed cutting opportunities, compounding his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Proved that scoring isn't required to heavily influence a game, generating massive value through elite hustle and ball pressure. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, creating deflections that sparked fast breaks for his teammates. His relentless energy in navigating through screens defined his brief but highly impactful stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.4

Played a highly controlled, low-mistake game during his brief minutes, prioritizing ball security over forcing his own offense. While his scoring volume plummeted compared to recent outings, his disciplined defensive positioning kept his overall impact positive. He focused on executing the scheme and making the extra pass rather than hunting contested shots.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1