GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 34.6m
22
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Bricking a high volume of contested mid-range jumpers severely hampered the half-court efficiency. He salvaged his night exclusively through versatile wing defense, frequently blowing up dribble hand-offs to stifle momentum.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.0
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 34.6m -19.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 33.1m
14
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Phenomenal energy plays and elite closeouts on shooters defined a stellar defensive shift. However, forcing heavily contested drives into traffic resulted in a brutal shooting slump that ultimately sank his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 33.1m -19.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 30.7m
20
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.0

Stretching the floor as a trailing big completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. Hitting timely pick-and-pop daggers from deep during a crucial third-quarter run cemented his status as a primary offensive catalyst.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 30.7m -17.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Johnny Furphy 30.5m
9
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless positioning on the glass kept possessions alive and frustrated the opposing frontcourt. His timely weak-side rotations disrupted several lob attempts, securing a modest but vital positive margin.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 30.5m -17.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 30.5m
15
pts
1
reb
11
ast
Impact
-4.1

Orchestrated the offense beautifully for stretches, yet telegraphed skip passes led to devastating transition run-outs for the other side. The sheer volume of points surrendered off his careless mistakes vastly outweighed his playmaking brilliance.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 30.5m -17.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Ben Sheppard 19.4m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Scraping for loose balls and executing flawless closeouts made him a nightmare for opposing wings. His disciplined approach to chasing shooters off the line perfectly complemented the starting unit's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 19.4m -11.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

Decisive cuts to the basket and quick-trigger decision-making kept the offensive flow humming. By punishing late closeouts with immediate drives, he consistently collapsed the defense and generated high-quality looks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 17.7m -10.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.5

Pestering opposing ball-handlers in the backcourt yielded excellent defensive returns. Despite the trademark grit, stalling the offense with over-dribbling late in the shot clock resulted in a slightly negative net output.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 17.5m -10.1
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Micah Potter 17.3m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by confidently stepping into open looks on the perimeter. A brief but highly effective stint as a spacing valve gave the primary creators much-needed room to operate.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 17.3m -9.9
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Injected immediate energy into a sluggish lineup by blowing up multiple screening actions at the point of attack. Those crucial hustle plays during a tight second-quarter window validated his short burst of playing time.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -54.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 8.7m -4.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 35.6m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite rim deterrence and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a massive defensive rating. Settling for above-the-break triples instead of punishing mismatches inside capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 35.6m -20.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Jarrett Allen 33.6m
19
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

Commanded the painted area entirely by sealing off driving lanes and altering floaters at the rim. His ability to consistently generate second-chance opportunities through sheer physicality overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 33.6m -19.3
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Darius Garland 33.0m
29
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.9

Slicing through drop coverage with elite burst allowed him to dictate the tempo of the entire offense. The scoring explosion was brilliant, though a complete lack of resistance at the point of attack kept his defensive metrics perfectly flat.

Shooting
FG 14/23 (60.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +25.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 33.0m -18.9
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 31.4m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Blistering perimeter execution generated tremendous offensive gravity, pulling defenders away from the paint. Despite the spacing benefits, getting repeatedly targeted on switches during the third quarter neutralized almost all of his positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 31.4m -18.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dean Wade 8.4m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Brief rotational stint was defined by sturdy perimeter containment rather than offensive creation. A couple of mistimed rotations in transition ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 8.4m -4.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-0.1

Tenacious on-ball pressure and a willingness to dive for loose balls produced outstanding defensive metrics. Unfortunately, a string of forced passes into tight windows resulted in turnovers that erased his gritty two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.6
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 28.0m -16.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 4
Jaylon Tyson 27.5m
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.8

Careless live-ball turnovers completely derailed the second-unit offense and sparked opponent fast breaks. He showed minor flashes of weak-side rim protection, but the offensive decision-making was far too erratic to survive his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 27.5m -15.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.8

Disastrous off-ball defensive awareness led to multiple backdoor cuts that hemorrhaged points. Even with a respectable shot profile, his inability to navigate screens effectively cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 21.8m -12.5
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Found success operating in the dunker spot, but defensive miscommunications on pick-and-roll coverages proved costly. Getting caught in no-man's land on several late-game possessions ultimately dragged his impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 20.7m -11.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1