GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Ethan Thompson 38.1m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.4

Heavy minutes combined with poor shot selection resulted in a massive negative impact. Clanking long-range attempts and failing to generate rim pressure stalled out half-court sets repeatedly. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions vastly outweighed his marginal hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 38.1m -21.2
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 25.8m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Continued his streak of highly efficient finishing, anchoring a steady two-way performance. Strong defensive positioning paired perfectly with his selective, high-quality shot diet. His ability to score within the flow of the offense without forcing action kept his impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 25.8m -14.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kobe Brown 17.8m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

A brutal perimeter shooting slump snapped his recent streak of high efficiency and cratered his overall value. Forcing contested looks from deep compounded his defensive lapses, bleeding points on both ends. This erratic shot selection derailed offensive momentum whenever he was involved.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -50.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.6
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 17.8m -9.9
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andrew Nembhard 17.1m
23
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.4

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency drove a spectacular net rating. He punished the defense by taking only premium looks and converting them at a near-perfect clip, while adding elite hustle plays. This surgical precision in shot selection completely dismantled the opponent's coverage.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +28.9
Avg player in 17.1m -9.5
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ivica Zubac 16.1m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Dominated the interior with highly efficient rim running and solid rim protection. By converting easy looks and contesting shots in the paint, he provided a reliable two-way anchor. His physical presence in the drop coverage scheme dictated the terms of engagement inside.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 16.1m -8.9
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite elite hustle and defensive metrics, his impact slipped into the red due to erratic perimeter shooting. A massive spike in scoring volume masked the inefficiency of his shot diet, as he forced too many looks from beyond the arc. His relentless energy on the glass couldn't fully offset the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +5.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 31.7m -17.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
Kam Jones 25.9m
3
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-18.5

A disastrous shooting night completely torpedoed his impact score, as he failed to connect on almost every attempt. The inability to finish plays derailed the offense and sparked opponent transition opportunities. This severe lack of scoring punch overshadowed any playmaking or defensive effort he provided.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense -9.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total -4.1
Avg player in 25.9m -14.4
Impact -18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Taelon Peter 24.0m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Settling exclusively for three-pointers severely limited his offensive ceiling and dragged down his overall rating. While he provided solid defensive resistance, the lack of interior pressure made him entirely predictable on offense. This one-dimensional approach allowed defenders to comfortably stay home on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -38.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 24.0m -13.5
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 16.2m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Maintained his recent trend of high-efficiency play by capitalizing on limited frontcourt touches. Solid positional defense and smart shot selection ensured he was a steadying presence on the floor. His ability to execute without demanding the ball perfectly complemented the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 16.2m -9.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 14.1m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite defensive anchoring powered a strong positive rating despite his struggles from beyond the arc. While his perimeter jumper abandoned him, his ability to protect the paint and finish inside kept his overall value high. His rim deterrence fundamentally altered the opponent's attacking angles.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.9
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 14.1m -7.8
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 13.1m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Surgical shooting efficiency maximized his value during a brief rotation stint. He took exactly what the defense gave him, punishing rotations with timely perimeter makes. This flawless shot selection perfectly masked his slight defensive deficiencies.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.7
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 13.1m -7.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 34.7m
43
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.9

Unrelenting offensive volume drove a sky-high impact score, as he took over primary scoring duties with a massive shot diet. Even with some inefficiency baked into taking that many attempts, his ability to constantly pressure the defense bent the opponent's coverage. This sheer scoring gravity anchored the entire offensive system.

Shooting
FG 14/31 (45.2%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 11/11 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 44.0%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +29.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +36.1
Avg player in 34.7m -19.2
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Green 34.4m
36
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.0

An explosive scoring surge well above his recent baseline fueled a massive positive impact. His aggressive shot creation overwhelmed the defense, while strong defensive metrics showed he was dialed in on both ends. This two-way dominance firmly dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 14/23 (60.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.7
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 34.4m -19.1
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 5
4
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.4

Excellent hustle and defensive metrics couldn't salvage a negative overall rating caused by severe offensive stagnation. His inability to find a rhythm or convert on limited looks bogged down the half-court execution. The perimeter hesitation ultimately outweighed his gritty point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +4.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 28.4m -15.8
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 28.0m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite a scorching perimeter shooting display that elevated his offensive production, underlying defensive struggles kept his overall impact slightly negative. The heavy reliance on three-point volume masked a lack of secondary playmaking and defensive resistance. He operated strictly as a floor spacer rather than a two-way difference-maker.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 28.0m -15.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Oso Ighodaro 25.4m
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.2

A sudden drop in offensive aggression snapped his streak of highly efficient finishing, dragging his overall value into the red. While he still provided solid connective passing and adequate defensive positioning, the lack of rim pressure allowed opponents to sag off him. His reluctance to attack the basket fundamentally altered the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 25.4m -14.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Offensive invisibility tanked his overall value despite putting together a respectable defensive shift. Missing easy looks around the basket neutralized the value of his hustle and rebounding efforts. He simply couldn't generate enough scoring gravity to justify his floor time.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.1m -12.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Active hands and disruptive perimeter defense pushed his impact into positive territory. By taking high-percentage looks and avoiding costly turnovers, he served as a highly effective rotational piece. His ability to muck up opposing passing lanes defined his brief run.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 17.7m -9.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 16.9m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Perfect shooting efficiency on a microscopic offensive load allowed him to maintain a positive net rating. He embraced a pure low-usage role, letting the game come to him while contributing timely hustle plays. This disciplined shot selection ensured he never hurt the team during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 16.9m -9.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Flawless execution on a tiny sample size kept him right at breakeven for the night. He played strictly within himself, converting his only looks at the rim without forcing the issue. This low-mistake, low-impact stint provided exactly the stabilizing filler minutes required.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 13.6m -7.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Amir Coffey 12.5m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A completely neutral outing where he essentially blended into the background during his time on the floor. He took no risks and made no glaring errors, resulting in a flat net impact. The lack of assertiveness meant he neither helped nor harmed the overall team structure.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.1%
Net Rtg +59.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 12.5m -7.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Wasted possessions on the perimeter quickly sank his rating during a very brief cameo. Firing up empty outside shots without contributing defensive resistance made him a net negative. The inability to connect from deep entirely defined this short, unproductive stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.1m -2.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor long enough to register a meaningful statistical footprint. A slight negative rating stems purely from rotational timing rather than any specific on-court mistakes. He essentially served as a brief placeholder.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0