GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 34.4m
21
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.3

Masterful operating in the midrange and the post, punishing mismatches with extreme efficiency. His defensive anchoring (+7.6) perfectly complemented his offensive clinic, resulting in a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +7.6
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 34.4m -17.0
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 33.3m
13
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.7

Playmaking vision was evident, but an inability to finish inside the arc dragged his overall impact into the red. Defenders routinely went under screens, daring him to shoot, which bogged down the half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 33.3m -16.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 32.4m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

Errant perimeter shooting completely cratered his offensive value, as he failed to punish defensive closeouts. The missed shots fueled transition opportunities for the opponent, negating his otherwise solid defensive effort (+4.7).

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 32.4m -16.0
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 28.2m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Completely warped the opposing defense by acting as a lethal stretch-five. Pairing that perimeter gravity with elite rim protection (+7.7) created a massive mismatch that drove his team-high impact score.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.7
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 28.2m -13.9
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Johnny Furphy 15.8m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Positional discipline and high-energy rotations (+3.1 hustle) kept his impact in the green. He didn't demand the ball, instead adding value by making the right defensive reads and securing loose balls.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 15.8m -7.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities from deep, but defensive lapses kept his overall impact slightly negative. His inability to consistently contain dribble penetration offset the value of his perimeter marksmanship.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 24.8m -12.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 23.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.6

Perimeter bricklaying destroyed his overall rating, as he failed to convert on the drive-and-kick opportunities created by teammates. Without any defensive playmaking to fall back on, his minutes were heavily detrimental.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -35.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 23.2m -11.5
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

A sharp decline in finishing efficiency compared to his recent hot streak limited his effectiveness as a spark plug. While he still organized the offense well, the lack of scoring threat allowed the defense to key in on passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 14.7m -7.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Capitalized on transition opportunities and attacked closeouts with purpose to generate efficient offense. His active hands and defensive engagement (+2.8) ensured his minutes were a net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 14.7m -7.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Micah Potter 12.8m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Provided a quick offensive jolt in short minutes by stretching the floor and converting his looks. However, his lack of defensive resistance (+1.3) prevented him from making a larger overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -51.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 12.8m -6.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Logged empty minutes with almost zero statistical footprint on either end of the floor. The lack of rim protection or offensive gravity resulted in a slight negative drag during his stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 5.7m -2.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
23
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.7

Elite shot creation and offensive orchestration fueled a massive positive swing when he was on the floor. His ability to break down the defense and generate high-quality looks consistently kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +6.1
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 37.5m -18.5
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 36.5m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.6

Shot selection was the primary culprit for a deeply negative overall score, as he forced contested looks throughout the night. While his defensive engagement remained high (+5.0), the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions erased any positive contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.1%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 36.5m -18.0
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Sam Hauser 32.9m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

A frigid night from beyond the arc completely neutralized his value as a floor spacer. Even with decent rebounding and hustle metrics, his missed open catch-and-shoot looks drove a steep negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 32.9m -16.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Neemias Queta 31.7m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Dominated the interior with relentless finishing, continuing a dominant streak of high-percentage converting around the rim. His massive defensive footprint (+9.2) suggests he effectively deterred drives and controlled the paint on both ends.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.2
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 31.7m -15.6
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating despite respectable defensive positioning (+4.3). His inability to convert on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off, clogging the driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 20.5m -10.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 26.0m
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Defensive versatility defined his performance, as his elite +9.8 defensive rating indicates he shut down his primary matchups. The hustle plays and switchability far outweighed his quiet offensive output.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.8
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 26.0m -12.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Struggled to find a rhythm from deep, which severely limited his offensive gravity. A lack of disruptive defensive plays (+1.0) meant he couldn't offset the damage done by his perimeter misfires.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 24.3m -12.0
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Luka Garza 16.1m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.2

Made the most of his limited run by capitalizing on high-percentage looks in the paint. His physical screening and interior positioning created a highly efficient offensive stint that kept his hot streak alive.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 16.1m -8.0
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Failed to make an imprint on the game during his brief rotation minutes. A lack of offensive assertiveness and minimal defensive disruption resulted in a noticeable negative drag.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 14.6m -7.2
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1