GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Aggressive downhill drives and confident perimeter shooting forced the defense to constantly rotate, opening up the floor for the entire unit. He capitalized on favorable cross-matches in transition, punishing retreating defenders with pull-up threes. A few sloppy passes in traffic kept his overall impact from climbing even higher.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 35.1m -19.0
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 34.6m
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Relentless isolation scoring in the mid-post consistently bailed out broken offensive possessions. He anchored the weakside defense effectively, rotating early to deter drives and contest at the rim. However, a handful of forced shots against double-teams slightly suppressed his net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 34.6m -18.9
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 32.7m
28
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
+11.6

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration tore the opposing defense apart, leading to a massive spike in both his scoring and playmaking output. He manipulated drop coverages perfectly, toggling between deadly mid-range floaters and pinpoint lobs. His point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opposing point guard's rhythm right from the opening tip.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 32.7m -17.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jay Huff 31.4m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Elite rim protection single-handedly drove his massive defensive impact, as he altered countless shots and completely shut off the paint. Despite a frigid shooting night that snapped his recent efficient streak, his vertical spacing and screen-setting remained highly valuable. He dominated the drop coverage scheme, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +13.0
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 31.4m -17.2
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 1
S Ethan Thompson 27.8m
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Spot-up shooting provided a reliable release valve, but his overall footprint was muted by a lack of playmaking aggression. He struggled to navigate through off-ball screens defensively, giving up a pair of costly corner threes. His impact hovered around neutral due to an inability to force turnovers or generate transition run-outs.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 27.8m -15.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Efficient spot-up shooting wasn't enough to overcome a string of missed defensive rotations that led to easy baseline dunks. He struggled to secure contested defensive rebounds, allowing crucial second-chance points during a tight second-quarter stretch. The lack of defensive rebounding completely negated his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 18.4m -10.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers backfired, as his missed threes sparked long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. He drew a crucial offensive foul through a timely rotation, but it couldn't mask the damage from his poor shot selection. Defenders aggressively chased him off the line, and he failed to counter with effective drives.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 17.3m -9.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Completely abandoned his offensive touch but salvaged his floor time with spectacular weakside shot-blocking. He neutralized the opponent's backup center by denying deep post position and fronting the block effectively. His relentless energy on the offensive glass created extra possessions that didn't show up in his own scoring column.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +11.9
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 16.6m -9.1
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing in the paint derailed his impact, as his usually reliable push-shots repeatedly rimmed out. He over-dribbled against a switching defense, stalling the ball movement and leading to late-clock violations. Opposing guards easily navigated his ball pressure, blowing by him for straight-line drives.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 15.6m -8.5
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Kept the ball moving and executed defensive schemes perfectly during a low-usage stint. He made a spectacular hustle play to save a ball from going out of bounds, directly leading to a transition three. His disciplined closeouts prevented dribble penetration and stabilized the second unit's defense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 10.4m -5.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
24
pts
12
reb
14
ast
Impact
+10.4

A massive turnaround from his recent slump was driven by relentless rim pressure and exceptional defensive rebounding that ignited the transition game. He completely controlled the tempo during a crucial third-quarter run, collapsing the defense to create wide-open looks for teammates. His active hands in passing lanes disrupted multiple offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +32.3
Avg player in 40.3m -21.9
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Zach LaVine 38.0m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

Shot selection issues plagued his minutes, with forced contested mid-range pull-ups disrupting the team's offensive flow. He lost track of his man on several backdoor cuts, bleeding points on the defensive end. The negative impact score reflects empty offensive possessions that directly fueled the opponent's fast break.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 38.0m -20.6
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Keegan Murray 37.5m
8
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.3

An icy shooting night cratered his value, as missed perimeter looks consistently sparked opponent transition opportunities. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical defenders, settling for contested jumpers instead. The offense bogged down significantly during his second-half shifts when he couldn't space the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 37.5m -20.4
Impact -16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 36.1m
20
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite strong scoring volume, his overall impact flatlined due to defensive lapses in isolation matchups against quicker wings. He surrendered too many straight-line drives, forcing rotations that left perimeter shooters wide open. A string of late-clock turnovers completely erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 36.1m -19.7
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 23.2m
13
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Efficient interior finishing kept his baseline value afloat, continuing a strong trend of high-percentage looks around the rim. However, his impact was neutralized by poor pick-and-roll coverage, where he repeatedly dropped too deep and conceded rhythm jumpers. He struggled to close out possessions with defensive rebounds in traffic.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 23.2m -12.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.6

Defensive versatility was the catalyst for his high rating, as he seamlessly switched onto guards and blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions. He generated crucial extra possessions by outworking bigger bodies on the offensive glass. His ability to finish through contact in the paint punished mismatches all night.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.6
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 21.0m -11.4
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Keon Ellis 15.1m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Offensive passivity limited his effectiveness, as he passed up open looks and allowed the defense to sag into the paint. He provided solid ball pressure defensively, but it wasn't enough to overcome his lack of gravity on the other end. A poorly timed shooting foul on a three-point attempt further dented his overall metric.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 15.1m -8.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

A step back from his recent scoring punch, as he struggled to create separation off the dribble against tight perimeter defense. While his point-of-attack defense remained solid, a couple of ill-advised live-ball turnovers tanked his overall rating. He hesitated on catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 14.1m -7.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Malik Monk 9.2m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.7

A disastrous short stint was defined by forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers early in the shot clock that led to long rebounds. He completely lost his scoring touch compared to recent outings, pressing the issue against set defenses. Defensive miscommunications on the perimeter compounded the damage during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -7.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -6.7
Avg player in 9.2m -5.0
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Barely registered an impact during a brief rotational stint, struggling to anchor the paint against quicker roll men. He picked up two quick fouls contesting at the rim, which cut his playing time short. Failed to generate any meaningful gravity as a screen-setter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -69.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 5.5m -2.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1