Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead NYK lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NYK 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Brunson Hard 10/23 +1.4
Bridges Hard 9/19 +3.2
Anunoby 5/13 -2.4
Clarkson Hard 6/12 +5.1
Kolek Hard 7/10 +6.0
Diawara 2/5 -1.6
Yabusele Hard 1/5 -2.8
Hukporti Open 1/3 -1.4
Jemison III Open 2/2 +1.4

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 9/22 -3.4
Nembhard Hard 12/19 +9.9
Mathurin Hard 7/18 -1.5
Jackson Hard 3/7 +0.3
Huff Hard 2/7 -3.6
McConnell Hard 4/6 +3.0
Walker Hard 2/4 +1.5
Mathews Hard 2/4 +0.3
Jackson Open 2/3 -0.2
Bradley Open 0/2 -2.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NYK
IND
43/92 Field Goals 43/93
46.7% Field Goal % 46.2%
17/43 3-Pointers 11/34
39.5% 3-Point % 32.4%
11/19 Free Throws 16/18
57.9% Free Throw % 88.9%
56.8% True Shooting % 56.0%
54 Total Rebounds 56
14 Offensive 16
32 Defensive 36
31 Assists 22
1.94 Assist/TO Ratio 1.57
16 Turnovers 14
10 Steals 8
5 Blocks 6
19 Fouls 20
40 Points in Paint 40
15 Fast Break Pts 12
17 Points off TOs 23
9 Second Chance Pts 11
42 Bench Points 24
3 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Pascal Siakam
26 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 37.5 MIN
+25.94
2
Andrew Nembhard
31 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 37.4 MIN
+22.12
3
Tyler Kolek
16 PTS · 6 REB · 11 AST · 26.2 MIN
+22.0
4
Jalen Brunson
25 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 34.4 MIN
+20.65
5
Mikal Bridges
22 PTS · 8 REB · 5 AST · 37.3 MIN
+16.77
6
Jordan Clarkson
18 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 29.4 MIN
+13.19
7
Bennedict Mathurin
16 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 38.5 MIN
+11.06
8
T.J. McConnell
8 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 17.9 MIN
+9.95
9
Isaiah Jackson
4 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 26.3 MIN
+9.72
10
Quenton Jackson
10 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 27.1 MIN
+9.14
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 T. Kolek REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 114–113
Q4 0:00 P. Siakam BLOCK (2 BLK) 114–113
Q4 0:00 MISS O. Anunoby driving Layup - blocked 114–113
Q4 0:03 O. Anunoby STEAL (2 STL) 114–113
Q4 0:03 J. Huff bad pass TURNOVER (3 TO) 114–113
Q4 0:05 J. Brunson 26' 3PT step back (25 PTS) 114–113
Q4 0:11 A. Nembhard take personal FOUL (4 PF) 111–113
Q4 0:16 P. Siakam Free Throw 2 of 2 (26 PTS) 111–113
Q4 0:16 P. Siakam Free Throw 1 of 2 (25 PTS) 111–112
Q4 0:16 O. Anunoby shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Siakam 2 FT) 111–111
Q4 0:34 Q. Jackson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:4) 111–111
Q4 0:40 MISS J. Brunson 25' step back 3PT 111–111
Q4 0:46 T. Kolek REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 111–111
Q4 0:49 MISS A. Nembhard 20' pullup Shot 111–111
Q4 1:06 J. Brunson lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 111–111

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
16
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.7

Wasted offensive possessions by settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers, sinking his overall impact despite strong defensive metrics. The sheer volume of clanked three-pointers neutralized his otherwise excellent hustle on the glass and in transition.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 37.5m
26
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+22.1

Overcame a high volume of missed field goals by anchoring the team with an elite +10.9 defensive rating. The ability to consistently collapse the defense and generate secondary actions drove a massive positive impact, even when his own shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Scoring +16.2
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +6.5
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 37.4m
31
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.3

Carried the offensive load with a spectacular display of shot-making, punishing drop coverage with lethal efficiency from all three levels. This massive scoring surge (+94% above average) was the primary engine behind his stellar box score impact.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +25.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +7.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quenton Jackson 27.1m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Struggled to positively influence the overall game flow despite respectable shooting splits. The negative net impact suggests breakdowns in off-ball defensive rotations or giving up key transition opportunities when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 18.1m
6
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Insisted on playing as a stretch-big but failed to connect on any perimeter attempts, severely damaging offensive spacing. This poor shot selection dragged his overall rating into the negative despite decent rebounding effort.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +12.7
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
4
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Sacrificed his own scoring opportunities to focus entirely on setting screens and controlling the paint. This unselfish approach yielded a strong box score impact (+10.8) as he maintained his streak of hyper-efficient interior finishing on limited touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +11.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Dictated the tempo of the second unit with surgical precision, picking his spots perfectly to maintain a streak of highly efficient shooting. Relentless point-of-attack defense (+4.7) disrupted opposing guards and fueled a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.2

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to assert himself and snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. Passive play and a lack of defensive resistance allowed opponents to dominate his minutes, resulting in a brutal -10.0 net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Provided a brief but effective spark off the bench by crashing the glass and fighting through screens. High-energy hustle plays (+3.1) ensured the team maintained momentum during his short rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -65.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.7

Failed to find a rhythm during a brief stint, missing his lone perimeter look and struggling to impact the offensive flow. While he wasn't a defensive liability, the lack of offensive gravity resulted in a slightly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -61.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

Offered zero offensive production in garbage time, completely abandoning the scoring punch shown in recent outings. Defensive lapses during this brief window ultimately dragged his total impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Managed to salvage a positive net rating despite failing to convert from the floor, likely by drawing contact and generating points at the charity stripe. The ability to manufacture offense without a made field goal proved valuable in a very short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 37.3m
22
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.7

An aggressive offensive mindset resulted in a massive scoring surge (+80% above recent averages) that kept the offense humming. He hunted his shot effectively from the perimeter, though the sheer volume of attempts slightly capped his overall efficiency ceiling.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +14.1
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 34.4m
25
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+20.6

Heavy shot volume drove a strong box score impact, even if the sheer number of missed field goals limited his maximum efficiency. He consistently broke down the primary point-of-attack defender to create advantages, keeping the offensive engine running.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +15.6
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +7.9
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S OG Anunoby 33.7m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Despite solid defensive metrics (+4.7), overall impact plummeted due to offensive inefficiency. Clanking multiple misses from beyond the arc stalled out half-court possessions and allowed the defense to sag.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ariel Hukporti 26.9m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Anchored the interior with a massive +9.2 defensive rating that completely overshadowed a quiet scoring night. His value came entirely from rim deterrence and active hustle rather than demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Mohamed Diawara 18.9m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.8

A lack of perimeter gravity tanked his overall rating, as he failed to connect on any outside looks. While he chipped in with decent hustle plays, the offensive spacing suffered significantly during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Caught fire from beyond the arc to smash his recent scoring averages, providing a massive jolt of perimeter shot-making. However, his overall impact hovered near neutral, suggesting his defensive rotations or off-ball execution gave back much of what he created.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 26.2m
16
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+14.6

Delivered a masterclass in offensive initiation, blending pinpoint playmaking with a highly efficient scoring spike (+321% vs average). Elite hustle metrics (+6.8) and flawless shot selection dictated the flow of the game every minute he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Played strictly within his role by taking only high-percentage looks around the basket. His flawless execution on limited touches stabilized the second unit, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.6

A severe shooting slump derailed his stint on the floor, as he forced contested looks from the perimeter. The inability to stretch the floor effectively cratered his offensive value and dragged his total impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -68.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Made the most of a brief cameo by focusing entirely on defensive positioning and energy plays. Avoided forcing any offensive action, allowing his hustle metrics to drive a surprisingly positive net rating in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Logged only a single second of game time, making any statistical evaluation irrelevant. The slightly positive score is merely a byproduct of being on the floor for a successful dead-ball or end-of-quarter sequence.

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 0m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0