GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 36.1m
20
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

A heavy diet of forced, contested mid-range isolation plays severely depressed his overall efficiency. While he generated excellent hustle metrics through physical rebounding and transition rim-runs, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions negated that effort. His inability to stretch the floor consistently allowed the defense to pack the paint against his drives.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 36.1m -19.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 34.0m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.3

Suffocating point-of-attack defense set the tone for a highly productive two-way performance. He consistently navigated screens to bother the primary ball handlers, disrupting the opponent's offensive timing. Pairing this lockdown perimeter pressure with timely catch-and-shoot conversions resulted in a robust positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 34.0m -18.0
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Andrew Nembhard 33.7m
18
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.1

Orchestrating the pick-and-roll with superb pacing allowed him to consistently manipulate the opposing drop coverage. Even with a handful of errant perimeter jumpers, his ability to generate high-quality looks for teammates kept the offense humming. Smart defensive positioning against larger wings added crucial hidden value to his shift.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 33.7m -17.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Johnny Furphy 21.9m
2
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Stellar weak-side rotations and closeouts (+5.9 Def) were entirely undone by a frigid shooting performance. Missing multiple wide-open looks from the corners allowed the defense to completely ignore him in half-court sets. This offensive dead weight ultimately dragged his overall impact below zero despite his defensive hustle.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 21.9m -11.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jarace Walker 21.5m
16
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Ruthless efficiency on low usage defined a highly impactful offensive shift. By decisively attacking closeouts and converting high-value looks at the rim, he maximized every touch without stalling the offense. This decisive shot selection perfectly complemented the primary creators and drove a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 21.5m -11.4
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Tunnel vision on drives into heavy traffic led to empty possessions that stunted the team's momentum. Although he crashed the offensive glass with relentless energy (+4.4 Hustle), his defensive rotations were frequently a step slow. Getting caught ball-watching on the perimeter surrendered crucial open looks that dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 28.4m -15.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jay Huff 23.4m
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

An absolute masterclass in drop-coverage rim protection (+10.1 Def) completely altered the opponent's shot profile. He deterred countless drives simply through verticality and positioning, forcing a barrage of low-percentage floaters. This defensive anchor role vastly outweighed his slightly erratic offensive finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.9
Defense +10.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 23.4m -12.5
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Micah Potter 16.9m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Sluggish closeouts on the perimeter allowed opposing shooters to find a rhythm during his minutes. While he provided adequate spacing as a trail big, his lack of foot speed in space was routinely exploited in pick-and-pop situations. This defensive liability ultimately overshadowed his capable floor-stretching ability.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 16.9m -8.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.9

Relentless full-court pressure and backcourt deflections completely derailed the opponent's offensive initiation. He weaponized his chaotic energy to force live-ball turnovers, immediately igniting the transition attack. This high-octane pacing in limited minutes provided a massive, game-altering spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 15.8m -8.5
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

A brief rotational stint was marred by getting targeted on defensive switches against larger wings. While he managed to space the floor effectively on his lone perimeter conversion, he couldn't hold his ground at the point of attack. This defensive vulnerability slightly outweighed his marginal offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Disastrous pick-and-roll coverages during a fleeting appearance hemorrhaged points in a hurry. He repeatedly lost his man on rolls to the rim, forcing emergency rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell. This inability to anchor the paint, even briefly, resulted in a sharp negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Coby White 31.6m
14
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.1

Errant perimeter attempts and forced drives into traffic severely handicapped his overall effectiveness. Settling for contested pull-ups early in the shot clock allowed the defense to easily leak out in transition. This poor shot diet completely erased the marginal value he provided through basic ball circulation.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 31.6m -16.8
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 31.5m
20
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Elite shot selection from beyond the arc fueled a massive offensive surge that anchored his positive net impact. By consistently hunting high-value corner threes rather than settling for contested mid-range jumpers, he maximized his touches. His length as a weak-side rim protector (+4.9 Def) perfectly complemented this offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 31.5m -16.7
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
25
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.9

Dominating the interior matchups yielded a massive two-way footprint, highlighted by a stellar defensive rating (+7.6). He controlled the glass through superior positioning rather than raw athleticism, denying second-chance opportunities. Punishing smaller defenders in the post forced double-teams that unlocked the entire half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.6
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 29.5m -15.6
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Josh Giddey 28.6m
10
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.3

Opposing defenses aggressively sagged off him on the perimeter, daring him to shoot and completely bogging down Chicago's offensive flow. Because he couldn't punish drop coverage, his passing lanes were choked off in the half-court. Even solid positional rebounding couldn't salvage a performance marred by a distinct lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 28.6m -15.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 22.8m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Despite generating excellent hustle metrics (+4.1) through loose ball recoveries and deflections, his offensive passivity doomed his overall impact. A sharp decline in scoring aggression allowed his primary defender to roam freely and clog the paint. This lack of spacing gravity ultimately dragged his net rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 22.8m -12.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 28.5m
19
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.5

Relentless downhill attacks fueled a strong box score impact, though his inability to connect from deep capped his overall ceiling. He consistently beat the initial point-of-attack defender to collapse the paint and generate high-percentage looks. However, defensive lapses on backdoor cuts prevented this from being a truly dominant two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 28.5m -15.1
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 27.7m
13
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

Exceptional verticality around the rim anchored a highly disruptive defensive performance (+7.2). He consistently deterred drivers without fouling, acting as a reliable safety valve for the perimeter stoppers. Capitalizing on dump-off passes and offensive putbacks maximized his offensive efficiency without demanding drawn-up plays.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.2
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 27.7m -14.7
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

A stark inability to find open space on the perimeter rendered him virtually invisible during his minutes. Without his usual off-ball movement to bend the defense, the offensive spacing collapsed inward. Failing to create any gravity off screens directly resulted in his deeply negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 17.4m -9.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

Complete passivity on the offensive end combined with blown defensive assignments to create a disastrous net rating. He routinely passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing his defender to aggressively double-team the ball handler. Getting repeatedly sealed out of rebounding position by smaller wings compounded the damage.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.3
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 17.1m -9.1
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Brief rotational minutes yielded almost zero tangible production on either end of the floor. He essentially provided empty cardio, failing to register any disruptive events or offensive flow. A lack of assertiveness during this short stint kept his impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.4m -1.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Relegated to end-of-bench mop-up duty, his fleeting court time offered no opportunity to influence the game's momentum. He merely occupied space during a transitional phase of the rotation. The slight negative score reflects the disjointed nature of these garbage-time possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0