GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 31.1m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

High-end defensive disruption (+6.6 Def) was completely neutralized by inefficient, high-volume shooting. He forced too many contested perimeter looks, snapping his recent streak of hyper-efficient performances. The defensive versatility and active hands (+3.6 Hustle) barely kept his overall impact near neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 31.1m -18.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 29.1m
20
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite an uptick in scoring aggression, his overall impact slipped into the red due to inefficient interior finishing. He struggled to convert in traffic, wasting several key possessions down the stretch. The solid point-of-attack defense (+3.7 Def) wasn't quite enough to offset the offensive misfires.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 29.1m -17.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jay Huff 27.8m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Misguided perimeter shot selection dragged down his overall effectiveness. By forcing three-pointers instead of utilizing his interior touch, he bailed out the defense and stalled out possessions. The resulting empty trips overshadowed a decent showing on the glass.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -57.7
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.8m -16.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ben Sheppard 25.2m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Smart, opportunistic cutting and excellent finishing around the basket drove a solid positive impact. He thrived off the ball, punishing sleeping defenders without needing plays called for him. Active perimeter defense (+3.5 Def) rounded out a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 25.2m -14.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Obi Toppin 8.5m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

A sharp drop in offensive involvement limited his ability to influence the game in transition. He struggled to find a rhythm in the half-court, bricking multiple perimeter attempts. However, surprisingly stout defensive positioning (+3.9 Def) prevented his brief stint from becoming a major negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 8.5m -5.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Tremendous hustle metrics (+5.0) were ultimately undone by erratic decision-making in the half-court. He forced the issue on drives, leading to contested misses that sparked opponent transition opportunities. The high-energy playstyle yielded diminishing returns due to a lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 30.6m -18.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Brown 25.9m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.0

A stark lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to completely ignore him, crippling the team's spacing. He passed up open looks, snapping a strong run of efficient scoring games. The resulting stagnant possessions heavily outweighed his passable defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 25.9m -15.5
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Micah Potter 25.9m
19
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Blistering pick-and-pop shooting completely warped the opposing defense, leading to a massive +9.7 impact. He punished drop coverages relentlessly from deep, opening up driving lanes for the guards. Paired with excellent rim deterrence (+5.9 Def), he dominated his matchup on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 25.9m -15.4
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 19.1m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Floating through the game without leaving a distinct imprint resulted in a negative overall score. He failed to pressure the rim or create advantages, settling into a passive perimeter role. The lack of defensive disruption (+0.9 Def) meant he was largely a passenger during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 19.1m -11.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.2

Uncharacteristic struggles finishing in the paint broke his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring. He probed the baseline well but couldn't convert his usual heavily-contested floaters, leading to empty trips. The resulting offensive drop-off pulled his overall impact slightly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 16.9m -10.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 31.2m
28
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Elite perimeter shot-making fueled a massive offensive rating spike, generating a +8.8 overall impact. His gravity from deep bent the defense consistently, while solid rotational awareness (+3.6 Def) ensured he didn't give those points back. A breakout shooting performance that completely dictated the half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 8/12 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +39.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 31.2m -18.7
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 29.9m
14
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.4

Flawless interior finishing and relentless rim-running drove a stellar +10.4 net impact. His elite shot selection maximized offensive possessions, while active rim protection (+5.7 Def) suffocated opponent drives. Continuing a hyper-efficient stretch, he anchored the paint on both ends without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +32.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.8
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 25.7m
33
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.8

A lethal combination of high-volume perimeter shooting and decisive isolation scoring powered a team-high +11.8 impact. He punished drop coverages relentlessly from beyond the arc, forcing the defense into impossible rotations. Maintaining pristine efficiency on a heavy offensive workload showcased his growing alpha-scorer capabilities.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 25.7m -15.4
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 23.6m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.5

Despite a massive drop in scoring volume, his value stayed positive entirely through high-level defensive execution (+9.3 Def). He embraced a gritty, low-usage role, using his physicality to disrupt opposing wings rather than forcing bad shots. The hustle metrics (+2.7) highlight a player who found alternative ways to contribute when his offensive touch wasn't needed.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.3
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 23.6m -14.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 21.6m
20
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+10.7

Exceptional hustle metrics (+5.8) and transition playmaking fueled a highly positive overall impact. He consistently pushed the pace off defensive rebounds, creating easy looks before the defense could set. Bouncing back from a recent efficiency slump, his disciplined shot selection kept the offense flowing smoothly.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 21.6m -12.9
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Timely corner floor-spacing kept his impact slightly above water. He capitalized on catch-and-shoot opportunities to punish defensive collapses, though his overall volume remained low. Solid positional defense (+2.4) ensured his minutes provided stable, if unspectacular, two-way value.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 22.5m -13.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Green 20.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his net impact (-10.0) despite decent defensive positioning. Playing 20 minutes without attempting a single shot allowed defenders to completely ignore him, destroying the team's half-court spacing. He essentially functioned as an offensive zero, forcing teammates into 4-on-5 situations.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.2%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 20.3m -12.2
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 18.8m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

An inability to convert open looks cratered his value, continuing a brutal offensive slump. Opponents aggressively sagged off him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes for the primary creators. Negative defensive metrics compounded the issue, making him a liability on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 18.8m -11.2
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Coby White 16.5m
7
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.4

Poor shot quality and a frigid perimeter touch dragged his overall impact firmly into the negative. He settled for contested jumpers early in the shot clock, stalling offensive momentum during a rough shooting night. While his defensive effort (+2.4) was passable, the offensive inefficiency was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.3%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 16.5m -9.9
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Provided steady, mistake-free minutes as a backup rim protector to generate a modest positive impact. He took only high-percentage looks around the basket, avoiding empty possessions. His verticality in drop coverage (+2.1 Def) quietly deterred a handful of drives during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +38.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 11.9m -7.1
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 9.9m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

A lack of overall engagement and zero hustle contributions resulted in a negative stint. He failed to generate his usual rim pressure, settling instead for perimeter looks that didn't fall. The defense barely felt his presence, leading to empty minutes off the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 9.9m -5.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Perfect shooting execution in a micro-role provided a quick jolt of positive value. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with smart off-ball cuts, maximizing his limited touches. Sound rotational defense (+2.6) ensured his brief appearance was a net positive for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 8.0m -4.8
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1