Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead NOP lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
NOP 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

NOP NOP Shot-making Δ

Murphy III Hard 7/21 -1.1
Williamson Open 10/12 +5.3
Queen Open 5/11 -2.8
Bey 6/10 +3.4
Fears 5/9 +2.6
Poole Hard 4/7 +4.9
Matković Hard 1/4 -1.0
McGowens 2/3 +0.9
Missi Open 1/3 -1.7
Hawkins Hard 0/2 -2.2

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam Hard 11/22 +4.3
Huff 13/17 +8.8
Nembhard Hard 7/13 +3.3
Nesmith Hard 5/13 -1.0
McConnell Hard 4/8 +1.3
Furphy 3/8 -2.3
Jackson Open 5/7 +1.5
Walker Hard 2/5 +1.0
Sheppard Hard 1/4 -1.3
Bradley Open 1/4 -3.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
NOP
IND
41/82 Field Goals 52/101
50.0% Field Goal % 51.5%
13/31 3-Pointers 15/43
41.9% 3-Point % 34.9%
24/30 Free Throws 8/12
80.0% Free Throw % 66.7%
62.5% True Shooting % 59.7%
49 Total Rebounds 51
8 Offensive 13
34 Defensive 30
22 Assists 37
2.44 Assist/TO Ratio 5.29
8 Turnovers 7
4 Steals 5
4 Blocks 7
16 Fouls 22
54 Points in Paint 66
16 Fast Break Pts 11
6 Points off TOs 8
6 Second Chance Pts 20
20 Bench Points 33
5 Largest Lead 16
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jay Huff
29 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 29.2 MIN
+35.84
2
Zion Williamson
27 PTS · 6 REB · 7 AST · 33.2 MIN
+21.93
3
Jeremiah Fears
16 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 31.3 MIN
+20.08
4
Pascal Siakam
27 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 33.9 MIN
+18.77
5
Derik Queen
14 PTS · 12 REB · 3 AST · 28.1 MIN
+15.55
6
Saddiq Bey
20 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 31.7 MIN
+14.22
7
Trey Murphy III
22 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 37.6 MIN
+12.88
8
Andrew Nembhard
19 PTS · 3 REB · 10 AST · 33.3 MIN
+12.49
9
Quenton Jackson
12 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 11.5 MIN
+11.26
10
Tony Bradley
3 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 18.8 MIN
+9.72
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:12 D. Queen Free Throw 2 of 2 (14 PTS) 119–127
Q4 0:12 D. Queen Free Throw 1 of 2 (13 PTS) 118–127
Q4 0:12 T. Bradley shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Queen 2 FT) 117–127
Q4 0:17 D. Queen REBOUND (Off:4 Def:8) 117–127
Q4 0:19 MISS J. Furphy 3PT 117–127
Q4 0:38 S. Bey driving reverse Layup (20 PTS) 117–127
Q4 0:45 P. Siakam driving Layup (27 PTS) (T. Bradley 3 AST) 115–127
Q4 0:47 T. Bradley REBOUND (Off:5 Def:4) 115–125
Q4 0:51 MISS P. Siakam 25' 3PT 115–125
Q4 1:11 J. Fears running Layup (16 PTS) (Z. Williamson 7 AST) 115–125
Q4 1:14 Z. Williamson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 113–125
Q4 1:15 MISS P. Siakam Free Throw 1 of 1 113–125
Q4 1:15 Z. Williamson shooting personal FOUL (3 PF) (Siakam 1 FT) 113–125
Q4 1:15 P. Siakam 8' bank Jump Shot (25 PTS) (A. Nembhard 10 AST) 113–125
Q4 1:23 T. Bradley REBOUND (Off:4 Def:4) 113–123

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 33.9m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.6

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
Scoring +18.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -3.1
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
+1.4

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
Scoring +14.4
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.8
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
-0.3

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
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
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
+31.1

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
Scoring +25.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +10.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-5.5

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
Scoring +3.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
-10.4

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
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -4.5
Turnovers +0.0
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
-1.7

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
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +10.5
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
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
-6.8

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
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
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
-7.6

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
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
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
+2.5

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
Scoring +10.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
+7.3

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
Scoring +10.5
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
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
+14.8

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
Scoring +24.2
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
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
+8.4

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
Scoring +16.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
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
+10.7

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
Scoring +13.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
+9.0

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
Scoring +9.9
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +10.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
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
-10.5

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.2
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
-2.1

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
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
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
-8.9

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
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
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
-12.1

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
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
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
-13.0

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
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0