GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 35.9m
23
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.4

Anchored the defense with brilliant weak-side rotations while methodically picking apart mismatches in the post. He avoided costly turnovers, ensuring nearly every offensive touch resulted in a quality look. His ability to dictate the tempo in the half-court was the defining factor of his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 35.9m -19.0
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 35.5m
19
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll yielded high-percentage looks, though defensive gambles slightly suppressed his total score. He carved up drop coverage with precision midrange pull-ups. A few ill-advised cross-court passes that resulted in transition buckets for the opponent kept his impact from being truly elite.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.7
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 35.5m -19.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 29.1m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Crippled by foul trouble and defensive miscommunications that constantly put the opponent in the bonus. Even with efficient shooting, his inability to stay in front of his man bled points on the other end. Several careless offensive fouls completely wiped out the value of his hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 29.1m -15.4
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Micah Potter 27.8m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Stretched the floor beautifully with confident perimeter shooting, opening up driving lanes for the guards. His true value came as a rim deterrent, altering multiple shots at the basket without fouling. He perfectly executed the pick-and-pop game while maintaining elite verticality on defense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.2
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 27.8m -14.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.9

An absolute disaster in isolation sets, where forced drives into traffic resulted in blocked shots and live-ball turnovers. His defensive effort waned considerably, repeatedly losing his man on backdoor cuts. The combination of stalled offense and blown coverages created a massive negative swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.8
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 19.8m -10.5
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 19.6m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Provided solid rim protection but was a complete non-factor offensively, clogging the paint and failing to convert easy dump-offs. His inability to finish through contact resulted in empty possessions that stalled the second unit. The defensive stops couldn't quite compensate for the offensive spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 19.6m -10.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

Completely changed the pace of the game with relentless full-court pressure that forced multiple backcourt turnovers. He probed the paint effectively, utilizing his trademark baseline turnaround to punish retreating bigs. His chaotic but controlled energy was the engine for the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.1
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 18.1m -9.6
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 16.6m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Delivered steady, mistake-free minutes by staying strictly within the offensive system. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities and executed timely closeouts on the perimeter. While not dominant in any single phase, his disciplined approach prevented any negative momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -47.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 16.6m -8.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Defensive liabilities overshadowed a decent shooting performance, as he was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll actions. He struggled to navigate screens, allowing open driving lanes that compromised the entire defensive shell. A couple of rushed perimeter attempts early in the shot clock further dented his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.3
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 14.4m -7.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Maximized a brief rotational stint by attacking closeouts with aggression and finishing strongly at the rim. He completely shifted the momentum during a second-quarter run with his decisive offensive reads. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -42.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 11.2m -5.8
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 10.1m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggled to adapt to the physicality of the game, getting bumped off his spots and rushing his offensive reads. He committed a pair of costly reach-in fouls that put the opponent in the bonus early. The lack of offensive rhythm compounded his defensive struggles during a rough rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +64.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 10.1m -5.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Only saw the floor for a fleeting garbage-time cameo. Did not have enough time to register any meaningful statistics or impact the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Entered the game for the final few seconds of action. His brief appearance was purely procedural with no opportunity to affect the outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Logged under a minute of playing time before the final buzzer. Was essentially a spectator during his short stint on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 33.4m
19
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.7

High-volume inefficiency erased the immense value he provided as a primary distributor and point-of-attack defender. He forced too many contested floaters in traffic, allowing the opponent to leak out in transition off long rebounds. While his defensive metrics were stellar, the sheer number of empty offensive possessions kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 33.4m -17.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 32.4m
24
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Relentless downhill attacks drove a massive offensive impact, but settling for contested perimeter looks capped his overall ceiling. He consistently collapsed the defense to create open passing lanes, though a few careless transition giveaways heavily penalized his net score. His point-of-attack defense remained a bright spot during crucial fourth-quarter stops.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 32.4m -17.1
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Luke Kornet 27.3m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Flawless finishing around the rim was entirely offset by a slew of moving screens and costly live-ball turnovers. He dominated the offensive glass to generate extra possessions, yet immediately gave that value back through sloppy passing out of the short roll. His defensive drop coverage was repeatedly exploited by pull-up shooters, dragging his net score down.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 27.3m -14.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

A brutal volume of missed perimeter shots completely tanked his overall value despite solid defensive rotations. His inability to punish closeouts stalled the half-court offense, leading to empty possessions that fueled transition run-outs. The high hustle metrics couldn't salvage the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 25.1m -13.4
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 21.0m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Invisible on both ends of the floor, his impact cratered due to forced jumpers early in the shot clock. He bled value by failing to generate any rim pressure when his outside shot abandoned him. The lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption left him as a severe net-negative.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 21.0m -11.1
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 29.1m
22
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

Surgical shot selection and elite finishing at the rim fueled a highly efficient offensive showcase. He consistently punished switches by attacking mismatches without turning the ball over. A dominant defensive presence in the passing lanes perfectly complemented his scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 29.1m -15.6
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Blistering perimeter efficiency kept the offense afloat, but defensive lapses on the weak side limited his overall impact. He capitalized on every catch-and-shoot opportunity presented to him within the flow of the system. However, late closeouts and a failure to secure defensive rebounds prevented a higher net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +28.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 26.4m -14.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kelly Olynyk 20.0m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Masterful connective passing and high-IQ positional defense resulted in a stellar two-way performance. He generated massive hidden value by keeping loose balls alive and setting bone-crushing flare screens. Rarely forcing his own offense, he capitalized on defensive breakdowns with perfect timing.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 20.0m -10.6
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Provided a massive spark off the bench by executing flawlessly within his role as a 3-and-D specialist. His relentless off-ball movement and crucial deflections disrupted the opponent's rhythm. He maximized his limited touches by only taking high-value perimeter looks.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +65.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 14.3m -7.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Rushed offensive decisions and poor spacing severely hampered the second unit during his brief stint. He settled for heavily contested midrange pull-ups instead of moving the ball to the open man. A lack of defensive resistance meant he offered nothing to offset the poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 11.0m -5.8
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0