GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Aaron Nesmith 33.5m
23
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Punished defensive lapses with lethal spot-up shooting and timely baseline cuts. While his offensive efficiency was off the charts, occasional over-aggressiveness on the perimeter led to blow-by drives that slightly capped his overall positive influence.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 33.5m -19.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 32.5m
25
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Picked apart the defense with surgical precision in the mid-post, utilizing elite footwork to generate unblockable looks. His disciplined closeouts and active help defense provided a stabilizing two-way presence throughout the contest.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 32.5m -19.2
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Andrew Nembhard 32.4m
26
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.7

High-usage playmaking and perimeter shot creation masked significant defensive vulnerabilities at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently beat him off the dribble, turning his offensive masterclass into a surprisingly neutral net outcome.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.1
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 32.4m -19.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarace Walker 26.3m
11
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.5

Inefficient finishing around the basket and a tendency to settle for contested jumpers hampered his offensive value. Despite securing the glass well, his slow defensive rotations led to easy backdoor cuts that dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 26.3m -15.5
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Johnny Furphy 12.9m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.1

Rushed offensive decisions and forced perimeter shots completely derailed his offensive rhythm. Opponents ruthlessly exploited his defensive positioning, turning his minutes into a massive negative swing for the team.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense -7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total -6.6
Avg player in 12.9m -7.5
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

Stagnated the offense with prolonged isolation sets that frequently bailed out the defense. Despite drawing fouls to generate points, his lack of off-ball movement and poor transition defense resulted in a detrimental overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 31.9m -18.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Jay Huff 31.1m
16
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities to stretch the floor, but struggled mightily to anchor the interior defense against physical bigs. Opponents repeatedly targeted his lack of lateral quickness in drop coverage, neutralizing his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 31.1m -18.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Ben Sheppard 17.7m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Maintained excellent floor spacing and executed defensive assignments with minimal mistakes. His low-mistake approach provided steady, reliable minutes, even if he lacked the dynamic playmaking to swing the game significantly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 17.7m -10.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

Injected immediate pace into the second unit by relentlessly pressuring the ball handler full-court. His ability to navigate screens and disrupt passing lanes created transition opportunities that bolstered his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 15.6m -9.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Provided a brief but effective rim-protecting spark during his limited stint on the floor. His disciplined verticality deterred several drives, though a lack of offensive involvement kept his overall impact modest.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 6.0m -3.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 36.5m
33
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+17.3

Utterly dominated his matchups by leveraging his size and athleticism to generate high-quality looks at the rim. His massive offensive output was perfectly complemented by elite defensive rotations and relentless hustle that suffocated opponent possessions.

Shooting
FG 12/29 (41.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 39.1%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +7.0
Defense +10.1
Raw total +38.9
Avg player in 36.5m -21.6
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
21
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.0

Relentless point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shot-making set the tone for the second unit. His ability to navigate screens and contest without fouling completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +10.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 35.1m -20.7
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Mouhamed Gueye 31.6m
15
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

A breakout performance fueled by high-energy rim runs and disruptive defensive positioning. His unexpected scoring punch forced the defense to adjust, while his constant activity on the glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +10.8
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 31.6m -18.7
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 29.1m
8
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.9

Offensive passivity limited his overall ceiling, as he frequently passed up open looks to reset the offense. However, his defensive instincts and active hands in passing lanes provided enough baseline value to keep his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 29.1m -17.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Despite decent hustle metrics, his overall impact cratered due to poor spatial awareness on defense and costly off-ball fouls. The lack of playmaking and a low-volume shooting night allowed defenders to sag off him, clogging the lane for teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 21.6m -12.7
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
CJ McCollum 29.2m
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc and defensive lapses in transition dragged down his overall effectiveness. While he found some success in the midrange, his inability to stretch the floor efficiently allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 29.2m -17.2
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by finding soft spots in the zone for quick catch-and-shoot opportunities. His limited off-ball movement and average defensive resistance kept his overall impact relatively muted despite the efficient scoring burst.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 22.1m -13.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 18.3m
11
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Elite spacing gravity created driving lanes for teammates, but his defensive limitations were repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll switches. The efficient shooting was ultimately offset by his inability to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 18.3m -10.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Completely neutralized offensively by physical interior defense, leading to empty possessions and missed point-blank opportunities. His inability to anchor the paint or deter drives allowed opponents to attack the rim with impunity while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 16.4m -9.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0