GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 33.4m
27
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.3

Carved up the mid-range with methodical isolation scoring, consistently punishing mismatches to keep the offense stabilized. His high-volume shot-making was the engine for the starting unit, though a lack of elite defensive disruption kept his overall impact from reaching the stratosphere.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 31.2%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +19.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 33.4m -18.5
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 32.5m
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Relentless point-of-attack defense and timely floor-spacing defined his two-way contribution. He routinely blew up dribble hand-offs and capitalized on spot-up opportunities, acting as the perfect complementary piece.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 32.5m -18.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 32.1m
7
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.9

Careless ball-handling severely damaged his bottom line, as live-ball turnovers repeatedly ignited opponent fast breaks. Even with active perimeter defense and decent facilitation, those costly mistakes in transition dragged his overall value deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 32.1m -17.9
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Johnny Furphy 13.8m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Defensive lapses and poor positional awareness heavily penalized his time on the floor. He was frequently targeted in isolation, bleeding points at a rate that completely erased his modest work on the glass.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 13.8m -7.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 11.7m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Settling for perimeter jumpers proved costly, as his misfires from deep derailed several offensive sets. The inability to stretch the floor effectively allowed the opposing frontcourt to pack the paint without consequence.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -31.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 11.7m -6.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
25
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.2

Downhill aggression was the catalyst here, as he consistently collapsed the defense with forceful drives to the cup. Generating high-quality looks in the paint allowed him to dictate the tempo and carry the scoring load efficiently.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 34.4m -19.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Anchored the second unit with spectacular rim protection and high-energy rotations that completely stifled interior attacks. His vertical spacing and quick-twitch closeouts created a defensive fortress, far outweighing his low offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +11.1
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 24.9m -13.9
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Flashed excellent offensive versatility by picking his spots wisely and knocking down open looks in the flow of the offense. His disciplined shot selection and sturdy weak-side defense provided a reliable stabilizing effect for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 22.6m -12.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Struggled to find his rhythm in the mid-range, clanking several contested pull-ups that stalled the second unit's momentum. While his trademark pesky defense was present, the lack of offensive execution ultimately tipped his impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 15.8m -8.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 11.4m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Maximized a brief rotational window by spacing the floor effectively and executing defensive assignments without fouling. Knocking down his perimeter look forced opposing bigs out of the paint, subtly opening up driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 11.4m -6.4
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Managed a remarkably quiet stint, primarily serving as a placeholder to buy the starters a few minutes of rest. He executed the basic sets without making any glaring mistakes, resulting in a perfectly neutral shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 7.3m -4.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.1m
16
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.5

A heavy dose of missed attempts in the paint and likely ball-security issues overshadowed his otherwise stellar rebounding and defensive disruption. Opponents dared him to shoot by sagging off, which clogged driving lanes and stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 39.1m -21.8
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Perimeter shot-making kept his baseline value afloat, but a lack of secondary playmaking and low physical engagement dragged him into the red. He settled too often for contested jumpers rather than pressuring the rim, limiting his overall offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 35.3m -19.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 35.3m
39
pts
16
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.1

Utterly dominated the interior matchups, using elite footwork to generate high-percentage looks and punish smaller defenders. His massive scoring volume was highly efficient inside the arc, while his passing out of double-teams kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 13/18 (72.2%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 45.2%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +26.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 35.3m -19.7
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tari Eason 33.5m
9
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Despite relentless activity on the glass and solid defensive metrics, his overall value plummeted due to empty offensive possessions and likely turnover woes. He struggled to finish inside the arc, stalling out half-court sets when forced to create.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 33.5m -18.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Reed Sheppard 25.2m
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

Errant perimeter shooting cratered his offensive impact, as he repeatedly bricked open looks from deep. While his defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp, the inability to punish drop coverage severely handicapped the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 25.2m -14.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Operated strictly as a spot-up threat, offering zero secondary playmaking or rebounding to support the second unit. Hitting a pair of triples kept his box score respectable, but his narrow focus limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 17.3m -9.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Floated through his minutes with minimal offensive involvement, acting mostly as a decoy on the perimeter. The lack of tangible hustle plays or shot creation left him as a net negative during his rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 16.8m -9.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Capitalized on every touch around the basket, finishing flawlessly through traffic to maximize his limited minutes. His energetic cuts and decisive rim attacks provided a highly efficient scoring punch off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +62.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 14.1m -7.8
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 12.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Essentially ran wind sprints for his entire shift without registering a single meaningful statistical contribution. His complete absence of offensive aggression allowed defenders to aggressively double-team elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -42.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 12.4m -6.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 10.8m
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.8

Provided a quick jolt of interior stability through hard screens and active glass-cleaning during a brief stint. Even with a few blown finishes at the rim, his physical presence anchored the paint effectively enough to yield a positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 10.8m -6.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1