GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 32.1m
8
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.3

Bricked jumpers and a complete inability to connect from deep tanked his overall rating despite excellent defensive metrics. He settled for heavily contested threes instead of utilizing his size to attack the paint. Stellar weak-side rim protection was completely undone by the sheer number of wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 32.1m -19.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kam Jones 29.4m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-energy hustle plays kept his impact near neutral despite some defensive lapses. He consistently beat larger players to loose balls and generated extra possessions through sheer effort. Getting caught ball-watching on backdoor cuts prevented him from posting a positive overall score.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 29.4m -17.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ben Sheppard 28.4m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

A heavy volume of clanked perimeter shots severely damaged the team's offensive efficiency. He kept firing despite a cold hand, bailing out the defense and sparking long rebounds that fueled opponent fast breaks. While his defensive effort remained steady, the empty possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 28.4m -17.1
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Andrew Nembhard 27.6m
23
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Scoring volume masked a highly detrimental defensive performance that bled points on the other end. He repeatedly died on screens, forcing teammates into difficult rotations that left shooters wide open. A few careless live-ball turnovers in the fourth quarter directly led to easy transition layups.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 27.6m -16.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jay Huff 24.6m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.9

Failed to stretch the floor effectively, clanking multiple pick-and-pop attempts that allowed the defense to pack the paint. His slow lateral movement was repeatedly exposed in space by quicker guards. A lack of interior physicality resulted in several given-up offensive rebounds that extended opponent possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 24.6m -14.8
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Kobe Brown 31.4m
9
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.7

Snapped a reliable hot streak by forcing contested looks early in the shot clock, cratering his overall impact. He struggled to read the defense, driving into traffic and committing offensive fouls that killed momentum. A lack of defensive awareness in transition further compounded his struggles.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 31.4m -18.8
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Relentless motor and elite hustle metrics drove a solid positive performance off the bench. He generated absolute chaos in the passing lanes, sparking multiple fast breaks with timely deflections. Smart, decisive cuts to the basket allowed him to score efficiently without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +7.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 28.1m -16.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 23.4m
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.3

An absolute offensive explosion driven by flawless shot selection and dominant pick-and-roll finishing. He punished mismatches in the post and stretched the floor perfectly when defenders sagged off. This massive efficiency spike completely warped the opponent's defensive game plan.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 93.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 23.4m -14.1
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Pacing issues and a dip in finishing efficiency resulted in a rare negative outing. He uncharacteristically picked up his dribble in bad spots, leading to stalled possessions and forced passes. Despite his usual peskiness on defense, the lack of offensive flow dragged down his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 15.1m -9.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 33.6m
32
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.0

Relentless rim pressure and elite burst in the pick-and-roll overwhelmed drop coverages all night. He manipulated screens masterfully to create separation, punishing defenders who went under with timely pull-ups. Even with a few forced perimeter shots, his sheer offensive gravity kept the floor wide open.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.8
Raw total +33.1
Avg player in 33.6m -20.1
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S VJ Edgecombe 30.0m
23
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.0

Elite point-of-attack defense defined this massive positive performance, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation. He generated multiple live-ball turnovers that instantly translated into transition dunks. Aggressive downhill attacking exploited closing defenders perfectly.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +33.0
Avg player in 30.0m -18.0
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 27.8m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Defensive gambles and poor transition spacing cratered his overall impact despite efficient shooting. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts during the second quarter, giving back easy points at the rim. A pair of costly offensive fouls in the half-court further suppressed his value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.8m -16.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Joel Embiid 26.2m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.3

Bully-ball in the painted area dictated the entire flow of the game and forced the defense into early foul trouble. He established deep post position effortlessly, drawing double teams that created wide-open perimeter looks for teammates. A dominant stretch of rim protection in the third quarter completely shut off the opponent's driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 37.1%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 26.2m -15.7
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dominick Barlow 20.3m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Complete offensive invisibility in over 20 minutes of action severely handicapped the second unit's spacing. He passed up multiple open looks from the baseline, allowing the defense to aggressively double the ball-handler. His inability to command any gravity resulted in a stagnant half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.0%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 20.3m -12.2
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Strong defensive rotations kept his impact afloat, though his tendency to settle for contested jumpers limited his ceiling. He did an excellent job fighting over screens to bother opposing guards on the perimeter. However, a pair of careless passing turnovers in traffic prevented him from posting a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 26.5m -15.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Erratic shot selection and defensive vulnerabilities at the point of attack led to a steep negative rating. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in isolation, easily blowing by him for straight-line drives. His tendency to force contested floaters early in the shot clock stalled the offense's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 16.1m -9.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Surgical precision in the mid-range and around the basket fueled a highly efficient offensive showing. He capitalized on broken plays with excellent off-ball cutting, constantly finding the soft spots in the zone defense. A disciplined approach to contesting shots without fouling added quiet value on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 15.1m -8.9
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Adem Bona 14.9m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.7

Flawless execution as a rim-runner and lob threat maximized his short bursts of playing time. He set bone-crushing screens that freed up ball-handlers and rolled with violence to the basket. Excellent verticality on defense deterred multiple layup attempts without drawing fouls.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +73.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 14.9m -8.9
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Failed to make any tangible imprint on the game during his brief rotation stint. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, routinely giving up the switch too easily and creating mismatches. A lack of aggressiveness boxing out further limited his usefulness.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 10.3m -6.1
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A quiet stint where he largely blended into the background of the offensive sets. He maintained proper spacing in the corners but rarely looked to attack closeouts when the ball swung his way. Defensively, he stayed in front of his man but failed to generate any disruptive events.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 6.8m -4.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided a brief flash of interior physicality but struggled to finish through contact around the rim. He clogged the driving lanes effectively on defense, though his heavy feet made him a liability in pick-and-roll coverage. Ultimately, a short leash prevented him from establishing any real rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 6.8m -4.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Burned his limited minutes primarily chasing shooters around the perimeter with mixed results. He offered decent length in passing lanes but was entirely bypassed in the offensive progression. A rushed attempt in transition highlighted his lack of comfort within the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 5.4m -3.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0