Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell 16/27 +8.0
Tyson 10/13 +8.1
Mobley 6/13 -0.6
Hunter Hard 4/10 +0.8
Proctor Hard 3/9 +0.1
Wade 3/6 +0.1
Bryant Open 3/6 -1.5
Tomlin Open 2/6 -3.3
Porter Jr. Hard 2/5 -0.6
Travers 1/3 -1.3

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 11/21 -1.9
Nembhard 7/11 +5.2
Huff 6/10 +3.5
Mathurin 3/9 -1.9
Walker Hard 2/8 -3.2
Bradley 3/6 -0.5
Robinson-Earl 1/5 -3.8
Mathews Hard 3/3 +6.1
McConnell Hard 2/3 +1.5
Jackson Open 2/3 -0.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
IND
50/98 Field Goals 41/85
51.0% Field Goal % 48.2%
14/40 3-Pointers 10/30
35.0% 3-Point % 33.3%
21/29 Free Throws 27/37
72.4% Free Throw % 73.0%
60.9% True Shooting % 58.7%
59 Total Rebounds 52
19 Offensive 14
29 Defensive 22
27 Assists 19
3.00 Assist/TO Ratio 1.36
8 Turnovers 14
7 Steals 5
8 Blocks 6
28 Fouls 22
62 Points in Paint 58
16 Fast Break Pts 14
17 Points off TOs 13
28 Second Chance Pts 25
30 Bench Points 39
21 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Donovan Mitchell
43 PTS · 9 REB · 6 AST · 34.5 MIN
+33.08
2
Jaylon Tyson
27 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 30.8 MIN
+30.83
3
Pascal Siakam
26 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 31.3 MIN
+22.31
4
Andrew Nembhard
21 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 32.5 MIN
+17.38
5
Garrison Mathews
15 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 25.3 MIN
+14.56
6
Jay Huff
15 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 25.8 MIN
+14.39
7
Nae'Qwan Tomlin
6 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 27.2 MIN
+12.72
8
Evan Mobley
13 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 28.2 MIN
+9.26
9
Tyrese Proctor
12 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 21.5 MIN
+8.3
10
Craig Porter Jr.
4 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 22.4 MIN
+7.59
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:05 CLE shot clock Team TURNOVER 135–119
Q4 0:29 T. Bradley bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 135–119
Q4 0:35 T. Proctor Free Throw 2 of 2 (12 PTS) 135–119
Q4 0:35 T. Proctor Free Throw 1 of 2 (11 PTS) 134–119
Q4 0:35 T. Peter shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Proctor 2 FT) 133–119
Q4 0:49 E. Thompson 6' driving floating bank Jump Shot (2 PTS) 133–119
Q4 0:56 TEAM defensive REBOUND 133–117
Q4 0:58 MISS N. Tomlin fadeaway Shot 133–117
Q4 1:09 C. Porter Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 133–117
Q4 1:13 MISS T. Bryant 25' 3PT 133–117
Q4 1:21 T. Bryant REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 133–117
Q4 1:26 MISS E. Thompson running 3PT 133–117
Q4 1:30 J. Robinson-Earl REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 133–117
Q4 1:34 MISS L. Travers 25' 3PT 133–117
Q4 1:45 L. Travers REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 133–117

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 32.5m
21
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.5

Elite shot selection and flawless perimeter execution maximized his offensive efficiency. He supplemented his scoring bump with active defensive hands and high-motor hustle, ensuring his minutes were highly productive.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +18.1
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 31.2m
26
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.3

Masterful interior scoring and a steady diet of high-percentage looks inside the arc drove a massive box score impact. He wisely abandoned the three-point shot after early struggles, leaning on his mid-range game and hustle to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +17.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +7.0
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jarace Walker 29.3m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely derailed his offensive value and snapped a hot shooting streak. Although he provided excellent defensive resistance, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his overall score into the abyss.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 25.8m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Floor-stretching from the center position was the key differentiator, as his confident perimeter stroke forced opposing bigs out of the paint. Combined with active hustle and disciplined defense, his two-way versatility yielded a highly efficient outing.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Impact plummeted due to a severe lack of offensive rhythm and an inability to finish inside the perimeter. A steep drop in his usual scoring production, combined with negligible defensive resistance, resulted in a highly detrimental floor presence.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.0

Absolute perfection from beyond the arc punished defensive rotations and stretched the floor beautifully. He paired this elite spacing with gritty hustle plays and solid positional defense to deliver a highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 107.8%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +13.5
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 17.6m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-18.3

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his rating, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off, stalling the offense and completely neutralizing his modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Poor spatial awareness on offense led to a string of forced, missed jumpers from beyond the arc. While he battled admirably on the defensive end and showed good hustle, the wasted offensive possessions severely handicapped his overall value.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Defensive intimidation was the calling card here, as he consistently altered shots and blew up pick-and-roll actions. He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient shooting, proving that low-volume, high-energy minutes can yield excellent results.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Failed to establish any offensive rhythm, suffering a massive drop-off from his recent scoring surge. Defensive lapses and a general lack of aggression allowed the opposition to exploit his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Played exactly to a standstill, converting half his interior looks while offering zero defensive resistance or playmaking. A perfectly neutral outing defined by an inability to tilt the scales in either direction during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 38.9%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Maximized a very brief stint through relentless ball pressure and efficient downhill attacking. Despite a sharp drop in scoring volume, his ability to generate defensive havoc and secure loose balls kept his impact highly positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.1
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
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A complete non-factor offensively, attempting just one shot and watching his recent scoring momentum evaporate. Minor defensive miscommunications further compounded the issue, resulting in a distinctly negative shift during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
43
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+42.0

Relentless attacking and elite shot-making fueled a dominant offensive rating that more than doubled his usual production. High-motor hustle plays compounded the damage, ensuring his high-volume barrage translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 16/27 (59.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +34.2
Creation +3.7
Shot Making +9.3
Hustle +11.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylon Tyson 30.8m
27
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+29.0

An absolute offensive masterclass defined this massive positive impact, driven by elite shot selection and blistering perimeter execution. He completely shattered his recent scoring averages while maintaining high-level defensive positioning to maximize his floor time.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +24.3
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +12.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 28.2m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

A rare dip in shot quality snapped a four-game streak of elite efficiency, heavily influenced by forcing uncharacteristic looks from beyond the arc. His strong defensive presence and rim protection kept him near neutral, but the offensive friction was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +42.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense -6.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S De'Andre Hunter 27.9m
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Inefficient perimeter hunting and empty possessions severely limited his offensive ceiling. While he provided excellent energy on loose balls to boost his hustle metrics, the sheer volume of forced, missed jumpers ultimately sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dean Wade 25.7m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

A heavy reliance on clanking perimeter jumpers offset his noticeable scoring bump. Defensive lapses ultimately dragged his rating into the red, proving that empty offensive volume couldn't mask his struggles on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +6.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Defensive disruption was the undeniable catalyst here, generating a massive defensive impact that completely overshadowed his clunky offensive execution. High-energy rotations and active hands allowed him to stay firmly in the green despite struggling to find the bottom of the net.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

A strong uptick in scoring aggressiveness wasn't quite enough to overcome the hidden costs of empty possessions. While his hustle metrics were commendable, a lack of offensive gravity and perimeter spacing kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Perimeter volume masked significant inefficiency inside the arc, as he relied entirely on the deep ball to double his usual scoring output. Defensive stability and timely hustle plays ultimately salvaged a positive rating despite the erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Anchored the interior effectively during his brief stint, using his frame to generate stout defensive resistance. His ability to alter shots at the rim provided the necessary value to stay positive, even with a mundane offensive diet.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Failed to make a tangible imprint on the game during limited minutes, struggling to find a rhythm offensively. Minor defensive missteps and a lack of aggressive hustle plays allowed the game to pass him by.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -46.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged less than a minute of garbage time action. Did not accumulate enough possessions to generate any measurable impact on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0