Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
HOU lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
HOU 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 8/16 +1.1
Nembhard 4/13 -3.6
Mathurin Hard 5/11 +2.1
Nesmith Hard 5/8 +5.8
Huff 3/8 -1.3
Walker Hard 5/7 +5.1
McConnell 2/7 -3.0
Furphy 4/5 +3.1
Jones 2/4 -0.2
Potter 1/3 -1.4

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Durant Hard 13/20 +10.4
Smith Jr. Hard 8/16 +3.6
Sheppard Hard 6/12 +2.0
Thompson Open 6/9 +1.5
Eason 5/8 +2.1
Capela Open 3/4 +1.4
Adams Open 3/4 +1.2
Finney-Smith Hard 2/3 +2.9
Tate 1/3 -1.1
Okogie 1/2 +0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
HOU
44/88 Field Goals 49/83
50.0% Field Goal % 59.0%
18/34 3-Pointers 10/27
52.9% 3-Point % 37.0%
13/20 Free Throws 18/24
65.0% Free Throw % 75.0%
61.5% True Shooting % 67.3%
38 Total Rebounds 54
7 Offensive 14
22 Defensive 36
30 Assists 21
3.33 Assist/TO Ratio 1.11
9 Turnovers 16
12 Steals 4
3 Blocks 6
22 Fouls 17
46 Points in Paint 56
26 Fast Break Pts 4
37 Points off TOs 12
9 Second Chance Pts 25
54 Bench Points 34
2 Largest Lead 28
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kevin Durant
30 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 33.7 MIN
+22.5
2
Amen Thompson
20 PTS · 8 REB · 7 AST · 37.4 MIN
+22.36
3
Pascal Siakam
23 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 31.2 MIN
+15.11
4
Jabari Smith Jr.
21 PTS · 10 REB · 2 AST · 33.9 MIN
+14.9
5
Tari Eason
13 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 28.6 MIN
+13.31
6
Aaron Nesmith
14 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 23.7 MIN
+13.03
7
Jarace Walker
12 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 23.6 MIN
+12.79
8
Bennedict Mathurin
14 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 25.7 MIN
+10.64
9
Johnny Furphy
9 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 20.5 MIN
+8.88
10
Reed Sheppard
13 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 24.2 MIN
+8.19
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 J. Davison STEAL (1 STL) 119–126
Q4 0:11 Q. Jackson bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 119–126
Q4 0:16 T. Peter REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 119–126
Q4 0:19 MISS A. Holiday 7' driving floating Shot 119–126
Q4 0:41 Q. Jackson driving Layup (7 PTS) 119–126
Q4 0:42 Q. Jackson STEAL (1 STL) 117–126
Q4 0:42 J. Davison bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 117–126
Q4 0:55 Q. Jackson Free Throw 2 of 2 (5 PTS) 117–126
Q4 0:55 Q. Jackson Free Throw 1 of 2 (4 PTS) 116–126
Q4 0:55 J. Davison personal FOUL (1 PF) (Jackson 2 FT) 115–126
Q4 0:59 T. Peter STEAL (1 STL) 115–126
Q4 0:59 J. Green bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 115–126
Q4 1:03 J. Okogie REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 115–126
Q4 1:04 MISS K. Jones driving floating Shot 115–126
Q4 1:10 HOU 8-second-violation Team TURNOVER 115–126

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

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 37.4m
20
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+18.0

Relentless rim pressure and highly efficient finishing sustained his hot streak and generated a massive baseline advantage (+20.5). He paired this offensive engine with disruptive perimeter defense (+5.2) to thoroughly control the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +9.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
21
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

Despite an uptick in scoring efficiency compared to recent games, hidden negative plays and likely turnover costs undercut his strong baseline. Excellent defensive metrics (+5.9) weren't quite enough to pull his overall impact out of the red.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +5.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 33.7m
30
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+22.5

Masterful shot selection and surgical mid-range execution drove an overwhelmingly dominant offensive rating. He amplified this scoring clinic with high-level defensive engagement (+6.1), cementing his status as the primary catalyst for the team's success.

Shooting
FG 13/20 (65.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Scoring +24.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +8.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tari Eason 28.6m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Improved shot selection boosted his baseline efficiency, but off-ball mistakes and likely foul costs eroded his overall value. Even with solid defensive contributions, those hidden errors resulted in a slightly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Scoring +10.7
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Steven Adams 22.3m
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Strong hustle plays (+3.2) and efficient interior finishing were overshadowed by defensive limitations that allowed opponents to capitalize. His inability to anchor the paint effectively dragged down what was otherwise a solid offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +36.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+6.3) salvaged his impact on a night where his perimeter shot wasn't falling. His willingness to do the dirty work and maintain defensive integrity (+3.9) kept his overall rating positive despite the scoring dip.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

A surprising surge in shooting efficiency was completely negated by severe defensive breakdowns and hidden negative plays. The drastic -6.2 total impact indicates he was likely targeted and exploited on the defensive end whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Clint Capela 13.3m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

A massive spike in offensive involvement breathed life into his interior game. He capitalized on his touches with high efficiency, providing a sudden and highly positive jolt to the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 12.8m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Despite a slight uptick in his usually dormant scoring, his overall presence was a net negative due to off-ball mistakes. The lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him, stalling the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Complete absence of hustle plays and flat defensive metrics rendered him a liability during his brief shift. Poor shot selection further compounded his struggles, resulting in a steep negative impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -68.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

A totally empty offensive shift cratered his value, as he failed to generate any positive momentum. Without any defensive or hustle stats to fall back on, his minutes were a straight negative for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -155.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jeff Green 2.4m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Breaking a recent scoring drought with a single efficient touch wasn't enough to generate a positive rating. His overall lack of activity in a tiny window left him as a slight net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
JD Davison 2.4m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Maximized a garbage-time cameo by drawing fouls and playing fundamentally sound defense (+1.6). His ability to impact the game without attempting a field goal showcased high-IQ situational awareness.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -142.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 31.2m
23
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.1

Continuing his steady scoring trend, his offensive production was robust but offset by hidden negative plays that flattened his total impact. Strong defensive positioning (+4.1) helped salvage a marginally positive rating on a night where his baseline scoring masked some underlying inefficiencies.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 29.3m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

A severe drop-off in scoring efficiency completely tanked his offensive value. Even an outstanding defensive effort (+7.0) and high-energy hustle couldn't rescue his net impact from the damage done by forced shots and clanked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.1

Elite hustle plays (+4.8) and capable perimeter shot-making fueled a strong baseline rating. However, defensive lapses (-0.7) ate into those offensive gains, leaving him with only a marginally positive overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Johnny Furphy 20.4m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Excellent shot selection maximized his offensive touches, keeping his baseline impact highly positive. A strong motor translated to excellent hustle metrics (+3.5), allowing him to maintain a net positive rating despite limited overall volume.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 18.6m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

A dip in his typical shooting efficiency dragged down his overall offensive utility. Despite decent defensive metrics, the missed shots and inability to convert looks inside resulted in a distinctly negative total impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -71.9
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Blistering perimeter efficiency heavily tilted the math in his favor, punishing defensive rotations. He paired this elite shot selection with steady defensive execution to cement a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +11.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

Sustaining a phenomenal streak of high-efficiency shooting, he maximized every touch to drive a stellar baseline rating. Coupled with stifling defensive awareness (+5.2), his two-way execution firmly dictated the positive flow of the game during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 17.5m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Exceptional defensive metrics (+5.4) kept him afloat despite a significant drop in his offensive aggression. His reluctance to hunt his own shot halved his usual production, resulting in a nearly neutral overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

An uncharacteristic breakdown in finishing completely derailed his usual offensive rhythm, snapping a hot streak of hyper-efficient games. While his trademark hustle and defensive pressure remained intact, the missed bunnies at the rim ultimately dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 12.2m
3
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.8

A drastic reduction in his usual scoring volume severely limited his offensive utility. Poor defensive rotations (-1.2) further magnified his struggles, leading to a notably negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +73.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Tony Bradley 10.7m
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Complete offensive invisibility left him as a liability during his brief stint on the floor. Without any scoring gravity to occupy defenders, his negative defensive positioning compounded the damage, resulting in a steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

A near-total lack of offensive involvement rendered him mostly invisible during his minutes. Minor defensive missteps were enough to drag his low-volume shift into slightly negative territory.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +155.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Perfect perimeter shooting completely reversed his recent efficiency struggles, maximizing his value in a brief cameo. Strong defensive positioning (+3.0) compounded the damage he inflicted from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 123.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +155.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Flawless shot execution in a tiny window of playing time generated a massive localized impact. He capitalized on every single touch, continuing his streak of hyper-efficient scoring to instantly swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +155.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Scoring +7.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1