Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Huerter Hard 6/14 +0.3
Vučević 5/14 -2.2
Giddey 7/13 +2.7
Dosunmu 6/13 -0.6
Jones 7/9 +4.2
Buzelis 3/9 -2.0
Williams Hard 1/7 -4.3
Miller 2/3 +1.7
Olbrich Open 1/3 -1.9
Carter Hard 1/2 +1.0

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 11/23 +0.3
Mathurin Hard 8/19 -0.8
Nembhard Hard 5/10 +2.3
McConnell 4/10 -1.3
Huff Hard 5/9 +4.6
Jackson Open 5/5 +3.2
Sheppard Hard 2/4 +1.7
Walker Hard 1/4 -1.2
Mathews Hard 0/3 -2.7
Robinson-Earl Hard 0/2 -2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
IND
39/87 Field Goals 41/89
44.8% Field Goal % 46.1%
14/34 3-Pointers 13/41
41.2% 3-Point % 31.7%
9/16 Free Throws 8/11
56.2% Free Throw % 72.7%
53.7% True Shooting % 54.9%
57 Total Rebounds 52
8 Offensive 7
37 Defensive 37
24 Assists 24
1.85 Assist/TO Ratio 1.85
13 Turnovers 12
5 Steals 8
3 Blocks 10
14 Fouls 15
40 Points in Paint 36
23 Fast Break Pts 8
12 Points off TOs 9
8 Second Chance Pts 9
30 Bench Points 26
7 Largest Lead 11
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Pascal Siakam
24 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 36.3 MIN
+23.44
2
Isaiah Jackson
14 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 22.7 MIN
+20.81
3
Nikola Vučević
16 PTS · 8 REB · 6 AST · 30.2 MIN
+18.52
4
Jay Huff
14 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 25.3 MIN
+18.47
5
T.J. McConnell
8 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 24.8 MIN
+15.0
6
Tre Jones
17 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 29.1 MIN
+12.83
7
Josh Giddey
17 PTS · 11 REB · 7 AST · 33.5 MIN
+10.19
8
Matas Buzelis
8 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 34.0 MIN
+8.33
9
Ayo Dosunmu
15 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 35.4 MIN
+7.24
10
Bennedict Mathurin
19 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 37.9 MIN
+6.4
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 P. Siakam 14' pullup Jump Shot (24 PTS) 101–103
Q4 0:07 J. Huff defensive goaltending VIOLATION 101–101
Q4 0:07 T. Jones driving Layup (17 PTS) 101–101
Q4 0:10 A. Nembhard Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 99–101
Q4 0:10 TEAM offensive REBOUND 99–100
Q4 0:10 MISS A. Nembhard Free Throw 1 of 2 99–100
Q4 0:10 J. Giddey take personal FOUL (1 PF) (Nembhard 2 FT) 99–100
Q4 0:12 K. Huerter take personal FOUL (4 PF) 99–100
Q4 0:12 J. Huff REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 99–100
Q4 0:15 J. Huff BLOCK (4 BLK) 99–100
Q4 0:15 MISS N. Vučević turnaround Hook - blocked 99–100
Q4 0:20 TEAM offensive REBOUND 99–100
Q4 0:20 J. Huff BLOCK (3 BLK) 99–100
Q4 0:20 MISS K. Huerter cutting Layup - blocked 99–100
Q4 0:34 TEAM defensive REBOUND 99–100

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
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Shot selection was the primary culprit here, as forced perimeter looks repeatedly bailed out the defense and sparked fast breaks. Despite solid on-ball containment (+7.0 Def), his offensive tunnel vision stalled crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Scoring +11.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -11.3
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Pascal Siakam 36.3m
24
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.9

Masterful isolation creation and elite weak-side rim protection (+11.7 Def) dictated the terms of engagement all night. He consistently collapsed the defense on drives, absorbing contact and generating high-leverage scoring opportunities for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 31.6m
14
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.3

Getting caught on high ball screens and losing his man in transition dragged his defensive impact into the negative. The offense bogged down during his stints due to over-dribbling and settling for heavily contested pull-ups.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jay Huff 25.3m
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.5

Stretched the floor beautifully as a trailing big while simultaneously building a wall at the rim (+11.0 Def). His combination of contested rebounds and perimeter gravity completely warped the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
S Ben Sheppard 22.4m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Bleeding points on back-door cuts and late rotations (-0.6 Def) severely punished his overall rating. A glaring lack of loose-ball recoveries (+0.4 Hustle) compounded his struggles to stay in front of quicker matchups on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.3

Menacing full-court pressure (+8.7 Def) disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation from the opening tip. Even with his floater missing the mark, chaotic energy and loose-ball wins (+3.0 Hustle) tilted the possession battle in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.4

Absolute perfection as a lob threat and offensive rebounder generated a massive positive footprint. His relentless rim-running and vertical contests (+6.5 Def) completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt and sustained his elite efficiency streak.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +12.0
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

A drastic dip in offensive aggression snapped his hot streak, rendering him a virtual spectator on that end of the floor. While his positional defense remained sturdy, the lack of secondary playmaking or rim pressure tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

Struggled mightily to anchor the drop coverage, allowing guards to turn the corner with ease. Missed assignments and a lack of vertical deterrence negated his modest efforts on the offensive glass.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -87.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.5

Threw his body all over the floor to generate extra possessions (+6.2 Hustle), masking a complete lack of offensive production. Unfortunately, defensive miscommunications and missed rotations prevented him from breaking into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Ayo Dosunmu 35.4m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

A barrage of ill-advised transition pushes and defensive gambles dragged his net rating into the red. While his on-ball pressure yielded some hustle stats, the resulting breakdown in half-court spacing proved costly against a disciplined zone.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Matas Buzelis 34.0m
8
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Elite weak-side rotations and relentless rim-deterrence (+10.8 Def) kept his impact firmly positive despite a brutal scoring slump. He completely abandoned his offensive rhythm but anchored the second-line defense with high-motor closeouts (+6.1 Hustle).

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +14.0
Defense +3.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S Josh Giddey 33.5m
17
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.4

Upward regression in his scoring efficiency was completely negated by his inability to navigate ball screens on the other end. Giving up straight-line drives and failing to generate secondary hustle plays (+0.4) allowed opposing guards to feast in the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kevin Huerter 31.8m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Defensive miscommunications and getting blown by on straight-line drives torpedoed his overall rating despite decent offensive metrics. A tendency to force contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock handed the opponent easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.6

High-post facilitation and dominant positional rebounding drove a massive footprint even with his jumper misfiring. His ability to seal off driving lanes (+5.7 Def) prevented easy interior looks and dictated the half-court tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 29.1m
17
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

Surgical penetration and elite shot selection fueled a highly efficient offensive shift. He consistently punished drop coverage with perfectly timed floaters, maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient scoring nights by refusing to settle for bad looks.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

Offensive hesitation and a string of bricked spot-up looks completely cratered his value on the floor. He failed to leverage his size on the glass and was essentially a non-factor in the half-court offense, compounding his recent shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 11.1m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Point-of-attack harassment (+2.4 Hustle) kept him afloat during a brief, low-usage stint. He struggled to organize the offense, resulting in stagnant possessions that neutralized his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

Active hands in the passing lanes generated solid hustle metrics (+3.1), but poor screen-setting stalled out the offensive flow. A sharp drop in finishing efficiency at the rim rendered him a liability on the interior.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +60.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Capitalized on late-clock chaos by finding soft spots in the defense for easy dump-offs. Disciplined closeouts (+2.1 Def) in limited minutes provided a noticeable jolt of energy to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0