GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 29.0m
29
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+21.5

Masterful offensive orchestration and lethal shot-making resulted in an absolutely dominant analytical profile. He relentlessly targeted drop coverages, punishing retreating bigs with pull-up jumpers and pinpoint lobs to rolling teammates. This elite combination of scoring gravity and defensive ball-pressure completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +27.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +36.5
Avg player in 29.0m -15.0
Impact +21.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Nesmith 27.2m
12
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

A high volume of clanked perimeter jumpers severely dampened what was otherwise a stellar defensive showing. He expended massive energy chasing shooters through off-ball screens, which seemingly compromised his legs on the offensive end. Ultimately, his physical point-of-attack containment prevented his poor shooting from sinking the lineup.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 27.2m -14.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pascal Siakam 26.4m
11
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.4

A disastrous shooting night characterized by forced isolation plays completely tanked his net rating. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested mid-range fadeaways against set double-teams rather than keeping the ball moving. While his defensive rebounding remained solid, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions crippled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.8%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -6.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 26.4m -13.5
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S Quenton Jackson 22.6m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Poor finishing at the rim and a lack of playmaking vision resulted in a surprisingly steep negative impact. He consistently beat his primary defender but failed to read the weak-side help, leading to blocked shots and live-ball turnovers. This tunnel vision during a sloppy third-quarter stretch erased the value of his initial dribble penetration.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.6m -11.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Johnny Furphy 20.4m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Hyper-efficient perimeter shooting drove his positive box score, though a lack of defensive resistance kept his overall impact muted. He found soft spots in the zone coverage beautifully, knocking down momentum-shifting triples from the wing. However, his tendency to get blown by on straight-line drives gave back much of the value he created offensively.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 20.4m -10.5
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.2

Phenomenal defensive instincts and timely perimeter shooting combined for a massive positive impact. He functioned as a destructive free-safety on defense, blowing up passing lanes and rotating perfectly to protect the rim. Offensively, his willingness to confidently step into trail three-pointers kept the opposing defense constantly off-balance.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +43.7
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +13.7
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 29.9m -15.3
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 20.0m
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him largely invisible, dragging his total impact into the red. He routinely passed up open looks from the corner, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and crowd the paint. Despite executing his defensive assignments adequately, his refusal to space the floor bogged down the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 20.0m -10.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jay Huff 18.9m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Suffocating rim protection carried his overall impact despite a cold night shooting from beyond the arc. He completely locked down the paint during his minutes, altering numerous layups and deterring drives with his sheer size. While the missed trail threes were frustrating, his defensive anchoring proved far more valuable to the team's success.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +9.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 18.9m -9.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.6

Relentless pace-pushing and high-level distribution defined a highly effective stint off the bench. He consistently broke down the defense by snaking pick-and-rolls, creating wide-open looks for his shooters. His trademark full-court pressure also forced several rushed decisions, perfectly setting the tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 16.6m -8.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 16.0m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Elite floor-spacing from the frontcourt drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He repeatedly burned the opponent's defensive anchors by popping to the perimeter for uncontested threes after setting hard screens. This pure shooting gravity opened up massive driving lanes for the guards, cementing his positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +48.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 16.0m -8.3
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kam Jones 4.3m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A failure to impact the game in limited action resulted in a slight negative score. He struggled to get involved in the offensive flow, largely floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball. His inability to navigate through off-ball screens defensively allowed his man to generate clean looks.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 4.3m -2.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Brief and uneventful minutes yielded a negligible impact rating. He rarely touched the ball on offense, serving merely as a decoy in the corner while the primary ball-handlers went to work. A few solid defensive slides prevented his score from dropping further, but he ultimately left no real imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 4.3m -2.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Despite failing to convert on his interior touches, his sheer physical presence yielded a slightly positive rating. He occupied multiple bodies in the paint, which inadvertently freed up teammates for offensive rebounds and putbacks. The missed hook shots were ugly, but his positional discipline kept the defensive shell intact during garbage time.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 4.3m -2.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Tyler Herro 32.0m
21
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

High-volume perimeter misfires suppressed what could have been a dominant statistical night. He compensated for the poor deep-ball execution by aggressively attacking the seams of the defense to generate high-quality interior looks. A late third-quarter flurry of floaters and transition pushes ultimately pushed his impact score into the green.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 32.0m -16.4
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Bam Adebayo 24.8m
13
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Defensive anchoring kept his overall impact afloat despite a noticeable dip in offensive finishing around the rim. He struggled to establish deep post position against heavier drop-coverage bigs, leading to several empty possessions in the paint. However, his elite weak-side rim protection erased multiple opponent layups to salvage his net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 24.8m -12.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Norman Powell 22.0m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

A severe shooting slump dragged his overall impact into the negatives, primarily driven by forced perimeter looks early in the shot clock. His inability to punish closeouts stalled the half-court offense during a crucial second-quarter stretch. Despite the offensive struggles, he maintained engagement on the other end with solid point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.3%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -10.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 22.0m -11.3
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Andrew Wiggins 19.9m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Efficient shot selection fueled a highly positive rating, as he consistently attacked favorable matchups in the mid-post rather than settling for contested jumpers. His defensive versatility stood out when switching onto guards, completely neutralizing dribble penetration. This disciplined two-way effort stabilized the wing rotation whenever the second unit struggled.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 19.9m -10.2
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 19.2m
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Extraordinary hustle metrics almost entirely salvaged a completely invisible offensive outing. He functioned purely as a defensive pest, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs at the top of the key to disrupt the opponent's primary actions. The lack of scoring gravity ultimately allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +10.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 19.2m -9.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Opportunistic cutting and relentless activity on the offensive glass drove a positive two-way rating. He consistently punished ball-watching defenders with perfectly timed baseline drifts that generated easy interior looks. His physical containment on the perimeter further amplified his value, particularly during a crucial fourth-quarter defensive stand.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 25.5m -13.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Kel'el Ware 17.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Minimal offensive involvement and a failure to secure contested rebounds resulted in a disappointing negative score. He frequently got sealed out of the paint by smaller, more physical forwards during a rough second-quarter stint. Despite flashing some decent rim-deterrence, his inability to control the glass gave away too many second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 17.1m -8.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Rushed mechanics from the perimeter and poor spatial awareness on offense cratered his overall rating. He repeatedly forced heavily contested looks early in the possession, failing to let the half-court sets develop. The lone bright spot was his length in the passing lanes, which briefly disrupted the opponent's transition flow.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -37.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 16.8m -8.6
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A complete lack of offensive aggression severely limited his overall effectiveness, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the ball movement and forcing late-clock bailouts. While his rotational defense remained steady, the sheer passivity on offense dragged down his net impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 16.3m -8.5
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite rebounding rates and high-motor hustle plays kept his head above water despite a brutal shooting performance. He missed several wide-open corner threes but compensated by relentlessly crashing the offensive glass to generate extra possessions. His gritty closeouts on the perimeter ultimately tipped his overall impact into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 12.0m -6.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Dru Smith 11.7m
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.7

Flawless shot selection and crisp playmaking fueled a massive spike in his typical production. He expertly manipulated pick-and-roll coverages, consistently finding the roll man while taking only high-percentage looks for himself. This surgical orchestration of the second unit sparked a pivotal run that blew the game open.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 120.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 11.7m -6.0
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Disjointed offensive execution and an inability to create separation completely derailed his brief time on the floor. He repeatedly drove into traffic without a clear plan, resulting in empty possessions that fueled opponent run-outs. The game simply looked too fast for him during a disastrous first-half rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.6m
Offense -5.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 8.6m -4.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Maximized a very short stint by providing immediate floor-spacing gravity and disciplined weak-side defense. He perfectly executed his role as a spot-up threat, punishing defensive rotations whenever the ball swung his way. His timely stunt-and-recover actions on the perimeter quietly stifled several driving angles.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 7.8m -4.1
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Aggressive rim-running and decisive finishing allowed him to significantly outperform his recent averages in limited minutes. He capitalized on broken defensive coverages by sprinting the floor hard in transition to secure easy buckets. This burst of high-energy scoring provided a much-needed jolt to the late-game lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 6.1m -3.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0