Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
WAS lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
WAS 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 185 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Potter Hard 6/13 +2.3
Jackson 8/13 +1.9
Huff Hard 8/11 +9.5
Peter Hard 5/11 +1.4
Walker Hard 3/11 -1.5
Brown 4/9 -0.3
Jones Hard 2/9 -4.5
McConnell 4/8 +1.1
Sheppard 3/5 +0.7

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

Vukcevic 7/12 +0.7
Coulibaly 6/12 0.0
Williams 9/11 +6.7
Cooper 8/11 +4.4
Johnson 6/11 +2.2
Watkins Hard 5/11 +0.2
Carrington Hard 3/8 -0.6
Richmond 3/7 -0.7
Gill Open 5/6 +2.9
Riley 3/5 +1.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
WAS
43/90 Field Goals 55/95
47.8% Field Goal % 57.9%
18/49 3-Pointers 6/29
36.7% 3-Point % 20.7%
14/21 Free Throws 15/19
66.7% Free Throw % 78.9%
59.5% True Shooting % 63.4%
48 Total Rebounds 51
9 Offensive 10
31 Defensive 38
32 Assists 36
1.52 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
21 Turnovers 17
12 Steals 14
0 Blocks 9
16 Fouls 15
46 Points in Paint 78
23 Fast Break Pts 18
17 Points off TOs 30
4 Second Chance Pts 14
63 Bench Points 84
15 Largest Lead 13
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Alondes Williams
25 PTS · 10 REB · 4 AST · 29.5 MIN
+32.54
2
Jay Huff
22 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 15.9 MIN
+18.93
3
Kadary Richmond
7 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 31.3 MIN
+15.82
4
Tristan Vukcevic
14 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 20.2 MIN
+14.96
5
Anthony Gill
11 PTS · 3 REB · 6 AST · 23.2 MIN
+14.29
6
Kobe Brown
12 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 33.4 MIN
+14.18
7
Micah Potter
18 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 26.4 MIN
+14.14
8
Tre Johnson
14 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 18.5 MIN
+13.9
9
Taelon Peter
12 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 37.1 MIN
+11.16
10
Jamir Watkins
11 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 23.4 MIN
+10.7
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:11 S. Cooper REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 118–131
Q4 0:15 MISS J. Walker 25' 3PT 118–131
Q4 0:18 Q. Jackson REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 118–131
Q4 0:20 MISS K. Brown 25' pullup 3PT 118–131
Q4 0:27 J. Watkins driving DUNK (11 PTS) 118–131
Q4 0:28 J. Watkins REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 118–129
Q4 0:30 MISS S. Cooper 26' step back 3PT 118–129
Q4 0:54 T. Peter cutting Layup (12 PTS) (J. Walker 6 AST) 118–129
Q4 0:59 J. Watkins personal FOUL (4 PF) 116–129
Q4 1:04 A. Williams 28' 3PT (25 PTS) (A. Gill 6 AST) 116–129
Q4 1:17 Q. Jackson driving DUNK (21 PTS) 116–126
Q4 1:22 S. Cooper 8' driving floating Jump Shot (18 PTS) 114–126
Q4 1:33 T. Peter 27' 3PT (10 PTS) (Q. Jackson 3 AST) 114–124
Q4 1:35 J. Watkins 3PT pullup (9 PTS) (S. Cooper 5 AST) 111–124
Q4 1:43 A. Williams STEAL (1 STL) 111–121

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

WAS Washington Wizards
S Bilal Coulibaly 21.9m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Flashed excellent length in the passing lanes, but poor spacing and off-ball stagnation mitigated his overall effectiveness. A few costly live-ball turnovers during transition sequences ultimately tipped his net contribution slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Bub Carrington 21.8m
6
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-7.8

Stagnant decision-making and a heavy reliance on contested jumpers severely hampered the offensive flow. While he provided solid resistance at the point of attack, his inability to bend the defense or connect from deep cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Dominated the interior matchups to overcome a completely broken perimeter stroke. By abandoning the three-point line and focusing on hard rolls and rim protection, he managed to anchor a highly productive stretch for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +10.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +7.2
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 18.5m
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Injected immediate energy into the lineup with relentless off-ball movement and aggressive closeouts. His willingness to do the dirty work on the defensive glass sparked multiple fast-break opportunities, driving a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +10.3
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.4

Completely invisible during his brief stint on the floor, failing to register any meaningful offensive pressure or hustle plays. His lack of engagement allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo, resulting in a steep negative swing in just ten minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.2

Put on an absolute masterclass in perimeter lockdown defense, completely suffocating his primary assignment. The sheer volume of deflected passes and blown-up pick-and-rolls more than compensated for his passive approach on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +12.7
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 2
25
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+29.8

An offensive juggernaut performance characterized by pristine shot selection and relentless rim pressure. He dictated the terms of engagement on every possession, punishing defensive rotations while maintaining enough structural discipline to post a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +23.3
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +11.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

Defensive bleeding and likely turnover issues entirely wiped out a brilliant interior shooting night. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, turning his minutes into a shootout that the team ultimately lost.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Scoring +15.2
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Pure motor and grit defined this outing, as he consistently beat opponents to loose balls and secured extra possessions. Even with a shaky outside shot, his disruptive length in the passing lanes created chaos that directly translated to transition scores.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +24.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Anthony Gill 23.2m
11
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.8

Continued his streak of surgical efficiency by picking his spots perfectly around the basket. His veteran savvy in sealing off defenders and executing flawless weak-side rotations provided a stabilizing, highly profitable presence in the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +9.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
Will Riley 12.2m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Made the most of limited run by attacking the basket with purpose and drawing contact. His decisive downhill drives collapsed the defense effectively, ensuring a positive impact despite a notable drop in his usual scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Kam Jones 38.6m
4
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
-21.8

Offensive execution fell off a cliff, resulting in a disastrous net rating despite commendable effort on the defensive end. Forcing contested shots early in the clock consistently fueled opponent fast breaks, completely negating his otherwise solid point-of-attack containment.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jarace Walker 30.8m
12
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.9

A sudden regression in shot selection tanked his overall value, snapping a four-game hot streak with heavily contested looks from the perimeter. While he remained engaged as a weak-side rebounder, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions created a massive deficit.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +13.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ben Sheppard 19.8m
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite finding success inside the arc, his overall impact slipped into the red due to perimeter struggles and likely rotational breakdowns. His inability to stretch the floor from deep allowed defenders to sag, clogging the driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 15.9m
22
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Absolute flamethrower performance from the perimeter that completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. By dragging opposing bigs out to the arc and punishing them with elite spacing, he generated a massive positive swing in just under a quarter and a half of action.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +33.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +19.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S T.J. McConnell 14.7m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Maintained steady two-way play through relentless ball pressure and smart offensive pacing. Even though his recent blistering efficiency cooled slightly, his ability to disrupt passing lanes and organize the second unit kept his overall impact safely in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Taelon Peter 37.1m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Defensive tenacity and active hands were overshadowed by a brutal volume of missed perimeter looks. Opponents actively dared him to shoot from outside, and his willingness to take the bait stalled out multiple critical offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Brown 33.4m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Offensive tunnel vision severely limited his effectiveness, as a complete lack of playmaking stalled ball movement. While he held his own in isolation defense, forcing tough shots instead of finding the open man ultimately dragged his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 26.4m
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Spacing the floor as a stretch big proved highly effective, pulling rim protectors away from the paint to open up driving lanes. The aggressive trigger from deep yielded a strong offensive rating, though occasional defensive lapses in pick-and-roll coverage kept his net score from skyrocketing.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

A classic empty-calorie outing where high-volume scoring masked significant defensive liabilities. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, giving up nearly as much value on the defensive end as he generated through his relentless rim pressure.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +17.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -7.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4