GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.1

Forced isolation drives into heavy traffic severely damaged his offensive efficiency and stalled the team's half-court flow. Despite decent activity levels, his inability to convert at the rim or connect from deep resulted in a significantly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 29.9m -17.5
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 29.5m
18
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.9

High-quality shot selection and disciplined perimeter defense painted the picture of a strong performance, yet his net impact slipped slightly into the red. This discrepancy was largely driven by his minutes overlapping with the opponent's most potent offensive runs, masking his otherwise stellar individual execution.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 29.5m -17.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Pascal Siakam 28.4m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

An uncharacteristically stagnant offensive approach, marked by settling for contested mid-range fadeaways, torpedoed his scoring efficiency. While he maintained solid defensive positioning and crashed the glass, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions dragged his net rating down.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.2%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 28.4m -16.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 21.1m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Excellent rim deterrence and verticality in the paint kept his defensive metrics highly positive throughout his stint. However, his insistence on firing low-percentage looks from beyond the arc squandered offensive possessions and ultimately neutralized his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 21.1m -12.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Quenton Jackson 15.7m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Defensive miscommunications and struggles to stay in front of quicker guards heavily penalized his total impact score. He provided a few sparks of energy in transition, but his inability to anchor his assignments in the half-court proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 15.7m -9.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.0

Relentless off-ball motion and a knack for securing loose balls defined a highly energetic shift that kept his team afloat. His willingness to do the dirty work in the trenches perfectly complemented a steady diet of catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corner.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +8.2
Defense -0.0
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 26.3m -15.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Defensive frailties at the point of attack completely erased the value of his efficient perimeter stroke. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll actions, exposing his slow lateral movement and plunging his overall impact deep into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -21.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 18.4m -10.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Lethal spot-up shooting from the perimeter boosted his offensive metrics, but a notable lack of physical engagement on the interior limited his overall effectiveness. He frequently floated on the perimeter rather than attacking the glass, resulting in a slightly negative net rating despite the hot shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -58.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 18.1m -10.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 17.8m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Capitalized on every offensive opportunity by taking only wide-open, high-value looks within the flow of the offense. His sturdy positional defense and disciplined closeouts further amplified his value, proving that low-usage efficiency can yield a highly positive net score.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 119.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 17.8m -10.5
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.6

Surgical precision in the mid-range and an ability to consistently break down the first line of defense drove a highly productive offensive shift. He controlled the tempo flawlessly during his minutes, punishing defensive lapses with high-IQ shot selection to generate a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -68.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 14.3m -8.5
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Maximized a brief rotation stint by converting high-percentage dump-offs around the basket. He offered very little resistance in drop coverage, but his flawless finishing on limited touches kept his overall impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 7.0m -4.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 6.7m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Injected a quick burst of offensive efficiency by decisively attacking closeouts during his limited time on the floor. While his defensive rotations were occasionally a step slow, his flawless shot execution ensured a mildly positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 6.7m -3.9
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
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Logged a brief, uneventful stint that strictly served to buy the starters some rest. He stayed within his lane offensively and avoided major defensive blunders, resulting in a perfectly neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 6.7m -4.0
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
29
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-level shotmaking and aggressive drives to the rim inflated his raw production, but his overall net impact was muted by defensive givebacks. Opponents frequently targeted him in isolation during the second half, offsetting much of the value generated by his perimeter scoring burst.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.1
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 37.7m -22.1
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Derrick White 33.1m
21
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.0

Relentless off-ball activity and elite hustle metrics completely overshadowed a mediocre shooting night from the floor. His supreme defensive instincts at the point of attack disrupted opposing sets, generating extra possessions that fueled a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +8.9
Defense +7.5
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 33.1m -19.4
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 32.2m
30
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.0

Elite shot creation inside the arc drove a massive box-score impact, as he repeatedly punished drop coverage with highly efficient pull-ups. He paired this offensive dominance with suffocating point-of-attack defense, completely neutralizing his primary assignments to generate a stellar two-way rating.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +8.2
Raw total +30.9
Avg player in 32.2m -18.9
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Neemias Queta 20.7m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Interior deterrence was the defining feature of this stint, with his rim-protection metrics heavily boosting his overall impact. While his offensive touches were limited, his ability to alter shots in the paint and secure contested defensive boards provided a steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 20.7m -12.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jordan Walsh 18.9m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

A stark lack of offensive aggression severely limited his overall value, as he routinely passed up open looks on the perimeter to defer to teammates. His negative impact score was ultimately cemented by defensive lapses on the wing, where he struggled to navigate screens and stay attached to shooters.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.5
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 18.9m -11.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 26.6m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.7

Flawless shot selection around the basket anchored a highly productive offensive shift. He consistently sealed his man deep in the paint to create high-percentage looks, while his active screening and offensive rebounding generated crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 98.2%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +51.0
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 26.6m -15.6
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers torpedoed his offensive efficiency and dragged down the entire unit's spacing. Compounding the poor shot selection were persistent defensive breakdowns on the perimeter, resulting in a cratered net rating for the night.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 21.2m -12.5
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Exceptional effort on 50/50 balls and constant motion kept his impact near neutral despite a frigid perimeter shooting night. He struggled to find rhythm against aggressive closeouts, but his willingness to crash the glass and contest long rebounds salvaged his overall grade.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +44.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 20.1m -11.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Hauser 17.1m
23
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.8

Lethal off-ball movement and an immediate trigger off screens completely broke the opponent's defensive shell. His gravitational pull on the perimeter opened up the floor for everyone else, resulting in an astronomical net impact driven by elite floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 7/8 (87.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 129.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +48.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +24.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 17.1m -10.0
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Complete offensive invisibility dragged his overall rating into the red during his brief rotation minutes. He managed to salvage some value through disciplined weak-side rotations, but his refusal to look at the basket allowed defenders to heavily sag off and clog the lane.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 12.4m -7.2
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0