GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 33.9m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.4

High-volume shot creation kept the offense afloat, though his overall impact (+1.4) was surprisingly muted compared to his raw production. While he continued his recent trend of reliable scoring, a lack of supplementary hustle plays (+0.6) kept his ceiling capped.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 33.9m -19.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 33.3m
19
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite orchestrating the offense effectively and scoring at an above-average clip, hidden negatives severely suppressed his final impact (-4.2). Minimal hustle contributions (+0.4) and likely defensive lapses off the ball allowed opponents to capitalize during his floor time.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 33.3m -19.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 33.0m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Chilly perimeter execution derailed his value, as a barrage of clanked deep balls dragged his total impact into the red (-7.0). Even with respectable hustle and defensive metrics, his regression from his normally efficient baseline proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 33.0m -19.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 29.2m
29
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+23.8

An absolute masterclass in two-way efficiency resulted in a monstrous +23.8 net impact. He obliterated his recent scoring averages through phenomenal shot selection and paired that offensive explosion with elite rim protection (+6.5) to dominate his minutes.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +31.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +40.6
Avg player in 29.2m -16.8
Impact +23.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Johnny Furphy 28.6m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Strong defensive charting (+4.0) was completely overshadowed by clunky offensive execution that tanked his overall rating (-7.3). Poor perimeter shot selection and an inability to finish plays effectively turned his shifts into a net negative for the spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 28.6m -16.4
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

A sudden evaporation of offensive aggressiveness snapped his recent hot streak and sank his overall impact (-3.5). While he remained active on the margins with solid hustle (+3.2), his inability to pressure the defense severely limited his utility.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 21.3m -12.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tony Bradley 18.8m
3
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Imposing interior defense (+5.2) salvaged an otherwise ugly offensive showing to secure a positive net rating (+4.2). He missed several easy looks around the basket but compensated by anchoring the paint and altering opponent shot trajectories.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 18.8m -10.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.1

Steady playmaking and reliable mid-range execution kept his impact floating just above water (+0.1). He successfully extended his streak of highly efficient shooting nights, though a lack of signature hustle events prevented him from moving the needle further.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 15.6m -8.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 14.8m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

A stark drop-off in shooting efficiency rendered his rotational minutes largely ineffective (-3.4). Failing to provide his usual floor-spacing gravity, he compounded the issue with a distinct lack of disruptive hustle plays to compensate.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 14.8m -8.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Instant offense off the bench defined this highly productive stint, driving a stellar +5.3 impact in limited action. He aggressively attacked gaps to extend his streak of hyper-efficient shooting nights, perfectly executing his role as a spark plug.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 11.5m -6.7
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 37.6m
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.8

Brutal shot selection and heavy perimeter bricklaying dragged his overall impact deeply into the negative (-5.8). While he provided competent defensive charting (+3.2), the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely undermined his raw scoring totals.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 37.6m -21.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 33.2m
27
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.3

Utterly dominant interior finishing drove a massive offensive rating spike, punishing the defense with an elite conversion rate. He paired this high-volume scoring surge with solid defensive charting (+2.5) to cement a highly positive two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 33.2m -19.0
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Saddiq Bey 31.7m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Despite highly efficient shot-making that boosted his base offensive metrics, his overall impact fell into the red due to defensive limitations. A lack of disruptive hustle plays and negative defensive charting (-0.7) completely erased the value of his scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 31.7m -18.3
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jeremiah Fears 31.3m
16
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.9

Two-way dominance fueled a stellar +8.9 net impact, heavily driven by elite defensive charting (+6.0) and relentless hustle. He maintained his recent streak of high-end efficiency while suffocating his matchups on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.0
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 31.3m -17.9
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 28.1m
14
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.8

Exceptional activity levels defined this outing, with elite hustle metrics (+6.2) anchoring his overall value. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by generating extra possessions and providing stellar defensive charting (+4.6) that amplified his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 28.1m -16.2
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Yves Missi 19.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Complete offensive invisibility cratered his overall value, as he failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure during his shifts. Even with respectable defensive charting (+2.9), his inability to contribute to the scoring column rendered him a significant net negative (-6.1).

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 19.9m -11.5
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
Jordan Poole 16.6m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite snapping out of a brutal two-game shooting slump with crisp perimeter execution, his overall impact hovered just below neutral (-0.7). The offensive bounce-back was encouraging, but he failed to generate enough defensive resistance or hustle events to push his value into the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 16.6m -9.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

High-energy rotational minutes yielded strong hustle metrics (+4.2), but a lack of offensive involvement limited his overall effectiveness. Operating mostly as a cardio guy in the half-court prevented him from climbing out of a slight negative impact hole.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 16.4m -9.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

A sharp regression in finishing efficiency snapped a four-game hot streak and severely damaged his floor impact (-7.2). Without his usual reliable touch around the basket, his lack of supplementary hustle or defensive playmaking left him highly exposed.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 14.8m -8.5
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

A complete offensive blanking derailed his impact, missing all his looks to snap a recent streak of red-hot shooting. Generating zero gravity on the perimeter and offering minimal defensive resistance resulted in a steep -6.7 net rating for his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 10.4m -5.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0