GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

A severe drop in shot quality dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. He repeatedly forced isolation drives into crowded paint, leading to empty possessions and a breakdown of the offensive system. The lack of secondary hustle plays compounded the damage from his poor perimeter execution.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 33.9m -14.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 33.5m
15
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

High-level intangibles drove a strong positive rating despite a dip in his usual scoring volume. He sacrificed his own touches to set crushing screens and generate secondary scoring chances for teammates. Excellent weak-side defensive rotations further cemented his value in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/8 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 33.5m -14.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 33.2m
14
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.3

A brutal showing from deep torpedoed his net impact despite immense effort on the margins. He continuously settled for contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions far outweighed his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 33.2m -14.0
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ethan Thompson 26.1m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Exceptional point-of-attack defense nearly offset a disastrous offensive showing. He was a complete liability on the scoring end, bricking wide-open spot-up looks and stalling momentum. However, his relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries kept his overall impact from completely tanking.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.6
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 26.1m -11.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jay Huff 20.9m
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.6

Defensive anchoring completely salvaged a rough night shooting from beyond the arc. He consistently deterred drives at the rim and altered floaters, changing the geometry of the opponent's offense. His willingness to keep firing from deep, while inefficient, at least maintained necessary floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 20.9m -8.8
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.2

Completely dismantled the opposing second unit with surgical precision in the mid-range. His relentless rim pressure and elite finishing collapsed the defense and created wide-open passing lanes. High-motor defensive tracking rounded out a dominant two-way sparkplug performance.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 20.7m -8.6
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Played to a virtual standstill by balancing erratic offense with surprisingly stout defensive rotations. He struggled to find the range from the perimeter but made up for it by executing timely weak-side closeouts. A lack of playmaking involvement kept his overall ceiling capped.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 18.9m -7.9
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

An abrupt end to his recent hot streak, characterized by rushed mechanics and poor decision-making. He was repeatedly sped up by defensive closeouts, resulting in highly inefficient, off-balance attempts that fueled transition breaks. The resulting negative box impact made him virtually unplayable down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 16.8m -7.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Poor spatial awareness on defense and an inability to secure the glass led to a negative impact in limited minutes. He was frequently caught out of position in pick-and-roll coverage, giving up easy lob attempts. The flawless shooting clip couldn't compensate for the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 11.7m -4.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Delivered exactly what was needed by stretching the floor with lethal perimeter execution. Punishing late closeouts from deep forced the defense to adjust their entire scheme. He held up surprisingly well on the defensive end, solidifying a highly effective cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 11.1m -4.7
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

A chaotic eight-minute stint where poor defensive discipline heavily outweighed his energetic hustle. He committed costly fouls while gambling for steals, putting the opponent in the bonus early. The sharp drop in offensive involvement only magnified his mistakes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.2%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 8.0m -3.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Provided a brief but effective wall in the paint during a quick breather for the starters. He successfully deterred a pair of drives without committing a foul. Did not factor into the offensive game plan whatsoever.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +81.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 2.8m -1.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Logged purely ceremonial minutes at the end of the contest. A slight negative score likely stems from being on the floor for an opponent's garbage-time bucket. He had no opportunity to impact the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 1.2m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Made the absolute most of his closing-minute appearance by immediately draining a perimeter look. Flashing quick release mechanics, he capitalized on a broken defensive sequence. The brief burst of efficiency resulted in a highly concentrated positive impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 1.2m -0.4
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
24
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.9

A masterclass in two-way efficiency drove a massive positive impact. He methodically picked apart defensive coverages, combining elite shot selection with aggressive on-ball pressure. His ability to seamlessly toggle between primary scoring and high-level point-of-attack defense dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +30.8
Avg player in 37.9m -15.9
Impact +14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 34.6m
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite an uptick in scoring volume compared to his recent slump, his overall impact remained negative. The positive hustle and defensive metrics were completely erased by empty offensive possessions and poor floor spacing. Settling for heavily contested mid-range looks rather than attacking the rim stunted the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 34.6m -14.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 5
S Bobby Portis 31.7m
14
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Neutral impact overall despite solid defensive positioning. His interior presence was steady, but a lack of high-energy hustle plays limited his ability to swing momentum. He struggled to establish deep post position against physical frontcourt matchups, resulting in a quieter night than his recent averages.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 31.7m -13.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 27.7m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite rim protection kept his overall impact near neutral despite a disastrous shooting night. He repeatedly forced heavily contested pick-and-pop threes instead of rolling to the basket, severely damaging offensive efficiency. His ability to alter shots in the paint was the only thing preventing a massive negative score.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 27.7m -11.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S AJ Green 26.0m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.7

Impact cratered due to a complete inability to find his rhythm from the perimeter. Opponents aggressively chased him off the line, forcing rushed, out-of-rhythm attempts that fueled transition opportunities the other way. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, the offensive spacing collapsed entirely during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 26.0m -11.0
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ryan Rollins 32.7m
23
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.4

Phenomenal offensive decision-making fueled a team-high impact score. He relentlessly attacked closeouts and finished through contact, generating high-value looks at the rim. Paired with active hands in passing lanes, this was a complete, game-altering performance.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 32.7m -13.7
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jericho Sims 20.5m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

A surprisingly negative overall rating stemmed from a lack of rebounding presence despite perfect efficiency from the field. His inability to secure contested defensive boards allowed crucial second-chance opportunities that bled points. While his drop-coverage defense was adequate, he was largely a non-factor in offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +32.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.5m -8.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Gary Harris 16.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Faded into the background during his rotation minutes, resulting in a sluggish negative impact. He failed to navigate screens effectively on the perimeter, giving up clean driving lanes that compromised the defensive shell. The continued shooting efficiency couldn't mask his lack of physical engagement.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +59.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 16.2m -6.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Delivered a highly concentrated burst of positive impact in extremely limited action. Perfect execution on spot-up opportunities maximized his brief time on the floor. He capitalized immediately on defensive miscommunications, though his lack of hustle stats reflects a purely opportunistic stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 4.9m -2.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Essentially a cardio session during a brief four-minute stint. He offered zero offensive usage and merely occupied space on the wing. A slight negative score stems from failing to register any meaningful defensive disruptions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -75.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 4.0m -1.7
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
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Maximized a garbage-time cameo with immediate perimeter execution. Draining a quick catch-and-shoot look provided a localized spike in his box score metrics. There was simply not enough floor time to generate any defensive or hustle data.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Managed a slight positive bump by drawing contact and converting at the stripe in the final seconds. His drastic drop in production is purely a product of the microscopic minute allocation. He executed his solitary offensive assignment perfectly.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 1.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely broke a sweat in an end-of-bench appearance. A single correct defensive rotation was the only notable event of his shift. The negative total is negligible given the lack of actual possessions played.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 1.2m -0.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0