GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Kam Jones 32.5m
10
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-8.0

Elite playmaking vision was overshadowed by a string of sloppy live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's fast break. His refusal to attack the paint aggressively resulted in a perimeter-heavy shot chart that yielded poor efficiency. Ultimately, the points he generated via assists were entirely undone by the easy transition buckets he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -37.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 32.5m -18.8
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 27.9m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Flawless finishing around the basket and a reliable pick-and-pop jumper kept his offensive efficiency pristine. Yet, his overall impact plummeted into the negative due to being repeatedly targeted in space during defensive switches. The opponent's guards ruthlessly exploited his drop coverage, negating the value of his excellent offensive touch.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 27.9m -16.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 5
S Jarace Walker 25.0m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

A blistering display of perimeter shot-making extended his streak of highly efficient scoring nights. However, his overall impact was surprisingly muted due to a lack of physical engagement on the glass and minimal hustle plays. While his jumper was virtually unguardable, his tendency to float on the perimeter rather than mix it up inside limited his broader influence.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 89.3%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 25.0m -14.5
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ben Sheppard 22.0m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

An over-reliance on contested perimeter jumpers led to empty possessions that stalled the offense's momentum. While he provided adequate defensive resistance, his inability to threaten the rim made him entirely predictable to guard. The resulting lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him, driving his severe negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 22.0m -12.8
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Obi Toppin 11.2m
4
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.1

Despite a sharp decline in his usual scoring volume, he found alternative ways to dominate his minutes through exceptional defensive positioning. His ability to switch onto smaller guards and blow up pick-and-roll actions generated a massive defensive score. It was a brief but highly disruptive stint that proved his value extends far beyond transition dunks.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +6.1
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 11.2m -6.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Taelon Peter 35.8m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

A disastrous shot selection profile defined his night, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. Chucking a barrage of three-pointers at a dismal conversion rate actively shot his team out of offensive rhythm and cratered his net impact to a team-worst rating. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't mask the damage caused by his offensive tunnel vision.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 35.8m -20.9
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Kobe Brown 26.8m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

A stark regression in finishing ability snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient outings and bogged down the second unit. He struggled to anchor the defense, frequently getting caught out of position on weak-side rotations, which led to a dismal defensive score. The combination of forced shots and sluggish closeouts ultimately tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 26.8m -15.6
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Micah Potter 24.6m
18
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.5

Dominant screen-setting and decisive rolls to the basket unlocked a highly lucrative offensive performance. He capitalized on every mismatch in the paint, punishing smaller defenders to drive a stellar box score impact. His ability to seamlessly blend interior physicality with timely perimeter popping was the catalyst for his team's half-court success.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 24.6m -14.3
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 69.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

An inability to create separation against physical on-ball defense completely neutralized his scoring threat and shattered his recent efficiency streak. While he scrapped hard for loose balls to generate a solid hustle rating, his offensive possessions were largely dead on arrival. His failure to bend the defense with dribble penetration left the offense stagnant during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 19.9m -11.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.4

Uncharacteristically passive perimeter defense and a lack of disruptive hustle plays resulted in a negative overall impact despite his highly efficient finishing. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, allowing straight-line drives that collapsed the defensive shell. His trademark energy was noticeably absent, turning his minutes into a net negative even with a tidy offensive output.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 14.2m -8.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
7
pts
3
reb
14
ast
Impact
+4.2

Transitioning seamlessly into a pure facilitator role, he sacrificed his own scoring to pick apart the opposing defense with elite court vision. His staggering +12.3 defensive impact score was the real story, anchored by relentless point-of-attack pressure that disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. This was a masterclass in controlling the game's tempo without needing to hunt for shots.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +12.3
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 34.3m -19.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 21.2m
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.4

A massive leap in offensive aggression fueled a highly efficient scoring outburst that shattered his recent baseline. His flawless shot selection around the rim and timely perimeter makes drove a stellar +13.4 overall impact. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his defensive metrics to round out a breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 21.2m -12.4
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.3

Relentless rim-running and decisive cuts allowed him to maintain his scorching streak of high-percentage finishes. His near-perfect shooting clip generated a massive box impact, punishing the defense for leaving him open in the dunker spot. Even with modest defensive contributions, his offensive efficiency alone dictated the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 94.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 20.7m -12.1
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S GG Jackson 20.4m
11
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Cold shooting from the perimeter suppressed his usual offensive gravity, dragging down his scoring volume significantly. However, he salvaged a positive net rating through high-level defensive rotations and rim-deterrence. His ability to blow up pick-and-rolls and impact the game without scoring was the defining trait of this outing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 20.4m -11.8
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

A heavy diet of contested mid-range pull-ups hampered his overall efficiency, keeping his net impact relatively muted. While he successfully pressured the paint to generate offense, the lack of a three-point threat allowed defenders to sag off and clog driving lanes. Steady hustle plays helped keep his final rating in the green despite the erratic shot profile.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 20.3m -11.8
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Rayan Rupert 33.5m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

An unexpected scoring surge highlighted his offensive growth, but hidden mistakes ultimately dragged his overall impact into the red. Costly live-ball turnovers and missed defensive assignments during critical transition sequences erased the value of his perimeter shot-making. Despite strong individual hustle metrics, those momentum-killing errors defined his night.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 33.5m -19.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
19
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.5

Catch-and-shoot mastery from the corners completely warped the opponent's defensive shell and fueled a massive scoring spike. His quick trigger from deep punished late closeouts, generating a robust positive box score impact. Solid weak-side rim protection complemented an offensive performance that single-handedly swung the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 86.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 23.5m -13.5
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Spencer 23.4m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.7

Tactical off-ball movement and decisive shot selection allowed him to break out of a recent efficiency slump. He was a menace in the passing lanes, translating deflections into a stellar defensive impact that stabilized the second unit. A perfectly timed corner three during a crucial third-quarter run encapsulated his highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.3
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 23.4m -13.6
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Offensive hesitancy and forced drives into traffic resulted in a steep drop-off from his usual scoring production. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint, severely compounding his negative impact score. He fought hard through screens to salvage some defensive value, but his offensive struggles were too detrimental to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 23.3m -13.5
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
Javon Small 19.4m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Settling for low-quality, contested looks from deep torpedoed his offensive value and broke the team's half-court rhythm. He managed to provide solid resistance on the perimeter, using his length to generate a respectable defensive score. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of empty possessions he authored on offense outweighed his effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +49.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 19.4m -11.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0