Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHI lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
CHI 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 161 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 13/24 +7.2
Mathurin Hard 9/16 +6.3
Nembhard 7/14 -0.5
Thompson Hard 4/6 +4.9
Huff Open 4/5 +2.8
Jackson Open 3/4 +0.4
Mathews Hard 1/4 -1.1
Furphy 1/4 -2.5
Walker Hard 1/3 -0.2
McConnell 1/3 -0.9

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

White 6/14 -1.6
Carter Hard 5/11 +2.5
Williams 3/9 -1.5
Giddey 2/9 -4.3
Buzelis Open 5/8 +0.1
Vučević 3/7 +0.8
Terry 3/7 -1.0
Collins 3/5 +1.1
Phillips 2/4 +0.2
Miller Hard 2/3 +1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
CHI
45/84 Field Goals 34/77
53.6% Field Goal % 44.2%
18/39 3-Pointers 13/35
46.2% 3-Point % 37.1%
12/16 Free Throws 24/29
75.0% Free Throw % 82.8%
65.9% True Shooting % 58.5%
39 Total Rebounds 54
6 Offensive 11
29 Defensive 35
24 Assists 21
1.71 Assist/TO Ratio 1.11
13 Turnovers 18
13 Steals 7
8 Blocks 2
21 Fouls 15
44 Points in Paint 36
15 Fast Break Pts 8
22 Points off TOs 13
7 Second Chance Pts 18
27 Bench Points 42
19 Largest Lead 7
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Pascal Siakam
36 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 31.4 MIN
+28.84
2
Jay Huff
11 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 28.4 MIN
+23.89
3
Bennedict Mathurin
28 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 38.1 MIN
+23.66
4
Jevon Carter
14 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 22.2 MIN
+14.56
5
Matas Buzelis
19 PTS · 12 REB · 2 AST · 34.7 MIN
+12.91
6
Coby White
22 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 26.4 MIN
+12.58
7
Ethan Thompson
11 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 34.3 MIN
+12.45
8
Andrew Nembhard
15 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 32.8 MIN
+12.05
9
Julian Phillips
5 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 22.6 MIN
+7.56
10
Zach Collins
8 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 20.6 MIN
+7.53
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:05 IND shot clock Team TURNOVER 120–105
Q4 0:29 J. Carter 18' pullup Jump Shot (14 PTS) (E. Miller 2 AST) 120–105
Q4 0:43 T. Bradley cutting Layup (2 PTS) (E. Thompson 3 AST) 120–103
Q4 0:52 T. Bradley REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 118–103
Q4 0:53 MISS P. Williams 9' turnaround fadeaway Shot 118–103
Q4 1:15 M. Buzelis REBOUND (Off:2 Def:10) 118–103
Q4 1:17 MISS A. Nembhard 29' pullup 3PT 118–103
Q4 1:38 P. Siakam REBOUND (Off:3 Def:7) 118–103
Q4 1:39 J. Huff BLOCK (5 BLK) 118–103
Q4 1:39 MISS C. White driving Layup - blocked 118–103
Q4 1:53 M. Buzelis REBOUND (Off:2 Def:9) 118–103
Q4 1:54 MISS P. Siakam fadeaway Shot 118–103
Q4 2:12 E. Thompson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 118–103
Q4 2:13 MISS Z. Collins putback Layup 118–103
Q4 2:14 Z. Collins REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 118–103

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

CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 34.7m
19
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Generated crucial extra possessions through relentless activity on the offensive glass. His willingness to dive for loose balls and contest at the rim established a physical tone that kept the frontcourt stabilized.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 6
S Josh Giddey 33.0m
9
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.4

Telegraphing passes into congested paint areas led to back-breaking live-ball turnovers. Defenders sagged off him entirely to pack the paint, completely short-circuiting the half-court offense and driving a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 68.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Coby White 26.4m
22
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.6

Kept the scoreboard ticking with aggressive isolation attacks, but poor shot selection capped his true effectiveness. Several forced attempts early in the clock fueled opponent transition opportunities, limiting his net positive influence.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Repeatedly exposed in drop coverage as quicker guards exploited the space for uncontested floaters. His lack of rim deterrence and sluggish closeouts erased any marginal value he provided on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Julian Phillips 22.6m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Offensive passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for teammates. While his on-ball defense was adequate, his reluctance to attack closeouts bogged down the overall spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Consistently late on defensive rotations, offering virtually no resistance at the rim or on the perimeter. Settling for heavily contested midrange pull-ups rather than attacking the basket further drained the offense's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -50.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jevon Carter 22.2m
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.1

Completely disrupted the opposing backcourt with relentless, physical point-of-attack defense. Capitalized on the resulting chaos by confidently stepping into rhythm jumpers, swinging the momentum during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Zach Collins 20.6m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Supplied adequate post scoring but struggled to anchor the defense when pulled out to the perimeter. A string of unnecessary reaching fouls neutralized the offensive rhythm he had established on the block.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -5.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dalen Terry 19.5m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Wreaked havoc in the passing lanes to generate deflections, but gave the value right back with erratic decision-making in transition. His inability to finish through contact negated the advantages his defensive pressure created.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Executed his role perfectly during a brief stint by making sharp cuts to the basket. Avoided mistakes and maintained defensive integrity, keeping the second unit afloat while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
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
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Entered the game solely to eat the final few possessions of the clock. Did not have the opportunity to influence the game's outcome or flow in any measurable way.

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 1.2m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
28
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.6

High-volume shotmaking inflated his baseline metrics, but poor transition defense bled away much of that value. He consistently lost his man on back-cuts during the second half, limiting the overall effectiveness of his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Scoring +22.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 32.8m
15
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.0

Kept the offense humming in spurts but negated his own playmaking with careless live-ball turnovers. His point-of-attack pressure was solid, yet the offense stalled during crucial late-clock situations under his direction.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pascal Siakam 31.4m
36
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+33.8

Dominated his individual matchups by blending physical drives with lethal perimeter execution. His gravity warped the defensive shell during a massive third-quarter run, directly fueling a huge positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 43.5%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +27.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +9.1
Hustle +9.8
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jay Huff 28.4m
11
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.4

Anchored the interior with elite rim protection that completely deterred opponent drives. His vertical spacing and disciplined drop coverage against pick-and-rolls created a massive structural advantage, driving a team-high impact score.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Spacing value vanished as he clanked open looks from the perimeter, allowing the defense to cheat off him into the paint. A pattern of poorly timed defensive rotations compounded the issue, dragging his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided vital connective tissue by spacing the floor and making quick, decisive extra passes. His relentless effort on loose balls and disciplined closeouts generated a steady, positive influence throughout his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Struggled heavily with defensive positioning, frequently biting on pump fakes and surrendering deep post position. His inability to secure contested defensive rebounds allowed second-chance points that tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.0

Looked lost navigating off-ball screens, routinely giving up open perimeter looks to spot-up shooters. Forcing contested shots early in the shot clock further disrupted the offensive flow and cratered his overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.5

The usual tempo-pushing spark was absent as opposing guards easily contained his drives to the paint. Over-dribbling in the half-court bogged down possessions, resulting in a rare negative outing despite decent defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.6

Failed to find the rhythm that defined his recent hot streak, looking hesitant against physical closeouts. A few blown assignments in screen navigation quickly earned him a spot back on the bench after a brief first-half stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Made the most of a fleeting appearance by converting a quick look inside. Functioned strictly as a brief placeholder in the final minute without altering the game's broader dynamics.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Barely saw the floor during a brief rotational cameo at the end of the game. Did not log enough possessions to establish any meaningful rhythm or impact on either end.

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 1.2m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -1.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0