GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 33.7m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

Forced too many contested mid-range isolation looks, which dragged his efficiency down and stalled the offensive flow. Despite generating strong box score value (+13.8) through sheer usage, his negative total impact suggests he was a step slow in transition defense. A prolonged cold streak in the third quarter allowed the opponent to build insurmountable momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 33.7m -19.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 28.3m
16
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.1

Steady pick-and-roll orchestration and timely shot-making kept the offense humming, yielding a strong +12.5 box impact. However, his modest +1.1 total score indicates he likely surrendered value through defensive fouls or getting caught on screens. His ability to consistently find the roll man was the defining positive of his steady shift.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 28.3m -16.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

A catastrophic -7.8 Total Impact completely overshadowed a decent shooting night, pointing directly to severe breakdowns in defensive rotations and potential live-ball turnovers. He was consistently caught ball-watching on the weak side, allowing open corner threes that bled points. The scoring volume simply masked how much he compromised the team's defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 28.2m -16.1
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ben Sheppard 17.9m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.0

Delivered a flawless two-way performance, combining perfect shooting efficiency with suffocating point-of-attack defense (+6.0). He completely neutralized his primary perimeter matchup while punishing late closeouts on the other end. This explosive surge in production was the undisputed catalyst for the second unit's dominance.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 17.9m -10.1
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 17.7m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Impact cratered due to a disastrous perimeter shooting performance, missing five of his six attempts from deep. This sudden lack of spacing completely clogged the driving lanes for his guards, nullifying his otherwise solid defensive rim protection (+2.1). The opponent blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and blowing up the team's half-court geometry.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 17.7m -10.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

While he maintained his streak of highly efficient shooting, a glaring -4.8 Total Impact reveals significant struggles away from the ball. He was repeatedly exploited on defensive switches, lacking the lateral quickness to stay in front of smaller guards. The offensive polish is evident, but his poor screen navigation gave back every point he scored.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -55.5
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 21.6m -12.2
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Efficient spot-up shooting provided a solid box score boost, but his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive limitations. He was targeted in isolation sets by quicker wings, bleeding points on the perimeter. The shot-making was crisp, yet it couldn't fully mask his struggles to stay in front of his man.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 19.8m -11.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Generated excellent two-way value through high-energy rim running and disciplined verticality at the basket. He continued his hyper-efficient finishing streak by feasting on dump-off passes in the dunker spot. A robust +4.7 impact score reflects how effectively he anchored the interior during the non-starter minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 16.6m -9.4
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.2

Completely changed the tempo of the game with relentless rim pressure and disruptive on-ball defense (+5.8). He carved up the opposing second unit by relentlessly attacking the paint and kicking out to shooters. This masterful, high-octane floor general performance resulted in a massive +12.2 net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 16.5m -9.3
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

An absolute ghost offensively, failing to even attempt a shot in 16 minutes of action. This extreme passivity allowed the defense to play five-on-four, which directly fueled a massive -10.1 impact rating. His inability to act as a floor spacer or cutting threat completely derailed the lineup's offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.7%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 16.4m -9.4
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tony Bradley 13.6m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a sturdy, low-mistake presence in the middle, setting solid screens and executing his defensive assignments. He capitalized on free throw opportunities to boost his scoring efficiency without forcing bad shots. A slightly positive net rating perfectly captures his role as a stabilizing, albeit low-ceiling, rotation big.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 13.6m -7.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Forced two ill-advised perimeter shots in a very short window, instantly killing offensive momentum. His -4.6 impact in just three minutes highlights how damaging poor shot selection can be to a team's rhythm. The sudden disappearance of his usually reliable scoring touch made him an immediate liability.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 3.2m -1.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Chucked up four shots in barely three minutes, displaying a severe lack of offensive discipline. While he managed to convert once, the volume of wasted possessions dragged his overall impact into the red. This erratic shot selection short-circuited the offense during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Failed to assert himself offensively, logging a completely blank shooting line that starkly contrasted with his recent double-digit scoring average. He did provide a minor hustle boost (+1.0), likely through a quick rotation or loose ball effort. However, his overall passivity rendered him a slight negative in the grand scheme of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 3.2m -1.8
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 36.4m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Strong defensive metrics (+6.9) were completely undone by hidden negative plays, likely a string of live-ball turnovers or costly fouls that dragged his Total Impact down to -3.8. His shot selection was uncharacteristically forced compared to his recent efficient stretch, settling for contested mid-range looks. The inability to capitalize on transition opportunities defined his frustrating night.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 36.4m -20.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 36.1m
52
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+32.2

An absolute masterclass in shot-making drove a staggering +46.8 box impact, highlighted by a historic barrage from beyond the arc. He relentlessly punished drop coverage all night, finding his spots with zero hesitation. The sheer volume of highly contested, successful jumpers completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 19/25 (76.0%)
3PT 10/11 (90.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.6%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +46.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +52.6
Avg player in 36.1m -20.4
Impact +32.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 35.3m
24
pts
8
reb
13
ast
Impact
+5.1

Elite playmaking and scoring efficiency drove a massive +19.2 box score impact, systematically dismantling the opposing frontcourt in the pick-and-roll. However, his overall net score (+5.1) suggests a give-back on the other end, likely through slow transition recoveries or uncharacteristic passing turnovers. His mastery of the high-post matchup dictated the entire offensive flow despite the defensive leaks.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 35.3m -19.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Cameron Johnson 33.7m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.6

A sharp drop in scoring volume and an inability to find open space on the perimeter severely capped his offensive ceiling. The staggering -8.6 Total Impact indicates he was heavily targeted on defensive switches during a brutal second-half stretch. When the three-point volume isn't there, his lack of rim pressure becomes glaringly obvious.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 33.7m -19.1
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Spencer Jones 17.4m
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Despite generating massive value through loose ball recoveries and screen assists (Hustle +6.2), his overall impact plummeted into the red. Complete offensive passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint for others. This pattern of extreme low-volume shooting makes him a liability in half-court sets regardless of his high-motor dirty work.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +57.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 17.4m -9.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

While his shooting efficiency improved from recent struggles, a severely negative overall impact (-3.4) points to major lapses in team defense and off-ball awareness. He was consistently beaten on back-door cuts during a pivotal third-quarter run. The lack of secondary hustle stats further magnified his one-dimensional profile in this rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 27.2m -15.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 26.2m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Continuing a highly efficient five-game finishing streak, he generated excellent value through smart baseline cuts and transition rim-runs. Yet, his slightly negative Total Impact suggests he gave up nearly as much as he produced, likely due to foul trouble or poor closeouts on shooters. His ability to exploit the dunker spot remains his most reliable offensive weapon.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 26.2m -14.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Zeke Nnaji 11.6m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite flashing some positive defensive metrics (+2.5), his inability to alter shots at the rim or secure contested rebounds resulted in a net negative performance. He was repeatedly sealed out of the paint by stronger bigs during his second-quarter minutes. Offensive invisibility continues to make it difficult to justify extended run.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 11.6m -6.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Provided a quick, stabilizing physical presence in the paint during his brief rotation stint. He bullied his primary matchup in the post, generating high-percentage looks that kept the offense afloat. A positive net impact (+1.1) reflects solid positional rebounding and mistake-free execution in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -39.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 11.0m -6.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Made the most of a fleeting garbage-time appearance by immediately attacking the basket. A quick transition layup defined his brief stint, injecting a tiny burst of positive energy. He avoided any negative plays, resulting in a perfectly clean +2.1 impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Registered a negative impact during his extremely limited run due to a forced, out-of-rhythm jumper. He did manage to log a minor positive hustle metric, likely from a quick closeout or box-out. Ultimately, the contested miss was the sole driver of his -1.1 rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A completely empty offensive shift was highlighted by a rushed perimeter miss that tanked his box score impact. He managed to stay in front of his man defensively (+0.9), but offered zero playmaking value. The inability to initiate sets effectively during his brief cameo continues a concerning recent trend.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0