GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 35.4m
26
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Heavy offensive volume yielded diminishing returns, as a barrage of missed contested jumpers suppressed his overall impact. While he generated plenty of raw production, the inefficiency of his isolation touches prevented him from driving a larger positive margin.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 35.4m -17.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Andrew Nembhard 31.5m
14
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.3

Playmaking execution was offset by defensive passivity, resulting in a nearly flat net impact. He orchestrated the pick-and-roll beautifully but struggled to contain his man at the point of attack, giving up straight-line drives that erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -32.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 31.5m -15.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Aaron Nesmith 30.6m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.0

An absolutely disastrous shooting night from the perimeter cratered his value, completely neutralizing his elite +6.8 hustle rating. He fought relentlessly through screens and chased loose balls, but the sheer volume of bricked open looks killed the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +6.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 30.6m -15.3
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Johnny Furphy 26.2m
10
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-IQ defensive positioning (+6.3 Def) kept his overall impact above water despite a relatively quiet offensive showing. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and secured contested rebounds to limit second-chance opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/8 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 26.2m -13.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jay Huff 15.6m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Solid rim protection (+3.2 Def) anchored his slightly positive rating, even as his usual offensive touch abandoned him. He altered several shots in the paint during a crucial second-quarter stretch to stabilize the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 15.6m -7.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.2

Relentless point-of-attack pressure (+4.0 Def) and surgical offensive execution drove a highly productive shift. He completely changed the tempo of the game in the second half, picking up full-court and generating transition opportunities through pure hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 21.0m -10.4
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Tony Bradley 19.6m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Operating strictly as a space-eater, his complete lack of offensive involvement hurt the unit's versatility. He provided sturdy drop-coverage defense (+3.2 Def), but playing four-on-five on the other end ultimately dragged down his overall score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 2.0%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 19.6m -9.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

A dynamic two-way performance was highlighted by aggressive downhill drives and suffocating perimeter defense (+4.2 Def). He capitalized on an expanded offensive role, attacking closeouts with confidence to generate a massive +7.3 net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 18.9m -9.6
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Flashes of perimeter shot-making couldn't hide his struggles with defensive rotations (-0.6 Def). He was frequently caught ball-watching on the weak side, allowing back-door cuts that kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 18.4m -9.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 12.7m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

A lack of assertiveness defined his stint, as he passed up open looks and failed to pressure the defense. His hesitation allowed the opponent to cheat off him, bogging down the spacing and leading to a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 12.7m -6.4
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Missed opportunities from the perimeter sapped his value during a brief rotation appearance. While he tried to compensate with physical post defense (+1.9 Def), his inability to stretch the floor clogged the driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -103.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 7.6m -3.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 1.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely registered in the game flow during a one-minute cameo. The negative impact score is merely statistical noise from a single opponent bucket scored during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Made the most of a fleeting appearance by executing a flawless defensive rotation (+2.6 Def) to blow up an opponent's set play. It was a micro-shift, but his immediate defensive awareness yielded a quick positive spike.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Scottie Barnes 38.4m
26
pts
7
reb
13
ast
Impact
+9.5

A massive offensive surge fueled his stellar +9.5 overall impact, breaking out of a recent scoring slump with aggressive downhill attacks. His defensive versatility (+7.7 Def) anchored the rotation, allowing him to dominate his matchups on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.7
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 38.4m -19.1
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Brandon Ingram 36.0m
30
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.9

Elite shot-making carried his overall value, generating a massive +20.4 box score impact through high-level isolation creation. While his hustle metrics were relatively quiet, his ability to consistently punish mismatches in the mid-range masked any peripheral shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 36.0m -18.0
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Shead 34.4m
7
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.5

Relentless energy defined his minutes, evidenced by an elite +8.0 hustle rating from diving for loose balls and fighting over screens. However, poor shot selection and a string of clanked jumpers tanked his offensive value, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +8.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 34.4m -17.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Despite a noticeable dip in his usual offensive production, he maintained a positive impact through sheer effort on the glass and loose balls (+4.6 Hustle). His willingness to do the dirty work inside kept possessions alive when his typical scoring touch abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 32.8m -16.4
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 17.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jamison Battle 19.5m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Strong rotational defense and active hands (+4.4 Hustle) couldn't completely salvage a negative overall rating. His inability to generate meaningful offensive gravity during his stint allowed the defense to sag, stalling the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +60.5
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 19.5m -9.6
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gradey Dick 30.2m
21
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.8

An absolute eruption in offensive confidence drove a spectacular +12.8 net rating, snapping a brutal shooting slump. He paired his elite spacing with timely weak-side rotations (+3.8 Def), proving he can be a two-way catalyst when his jumper is falling.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 30.2m -15.1
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 23.5m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Even with a surprising scoring outburst compared to his recent baseline, defensive lapses and empty possessions elsewhere cratered his net score. He struggled to stay in front of dribble penetration, giving back whatever value he created with his perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 23.5m -11.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
A.J. Lawson 16.9m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Blending into the background during his rotation minutes resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. A lack of aggressive hustle plays and failure to assert himself in transition left him floating on the perimeter rather than forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 16.9m -8.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

A completely invisible stint on the floor led to a steep -4.4 impact score in limited action. He was routinely targeted on defensive switches and failed to register any meaningful disruption to stop the bleeding.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 7.3m -3.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Barely saw the floor, logging less than a minute of garbage time action. A quick defensive breakdown during that brief window was enough to register a negative blip on the radar.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0