GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 38.1m
18
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts dragged down his overall efficiency. While his length disrupted several passing lanes and bolstered the defensive rating, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips hurt the team's rhythm. Those wasted possessions narrowly eclipsed his otherwise solid two-way contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 38.1m -15.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Nesmith 34.4m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Over-aggression on the perimeter led to costly blow-bys and compromised the team's defensive shell. Offensively, a string of rushed, out-of-rhythm deep attempts short-circuited multiple transition opportunities. That undisciplined shot selection and defensive gambling resulted in a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 34.4m -13.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 32.1m
8
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.4

An absolutely frigid shooting night completely derailed the offensive flow whenever he initiated the offense. He managed to salvage some value by fighting over screens and applying relentless ball pressure on the other end. However, the sheer volume of bricked floaters and blocked layups created too deep of an offensive hole to climb out of.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 32.1m -12.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kobe Brown 29.5m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A sudden regression in finishing around the basket derailed his recent streak of hyper-efficient interior scoring. He managed to provide solid weak-side rim protection to keep the defensive metrics afloat, but clunky offensive execution stalled key possessions. The inability to capitalize on open spot-up looks ultimately tipped his value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 29.5m -11.9
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 28.9m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.9

Anchoring the drop coverage with exceptional discipline forced opponents into a steady diet of low-percentage floaters. His massive screens consistently freed up ball-handlers, generating high-quality looks that avoid traditional box score capture. This subtle physical dominance in the half-court ensured a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.4
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.9m -11.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Ben Sheppard 20.8m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Getting caught on back-screens and losing his man in transition severely damaged his defensive grading. Compounding the issue, his inability to knock down wide-open corner looks allowed the defense to aggressively double the post. The combination of defensive lapses and spacing issues tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense -1.4
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 20.8m -8.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.5

Relentless full-court pressure and chaotic baseline drives completely fractured the opposing second unit's rhythm. He consistently manipulated the pick-and-roll to find the exact soft spots in the midrange, converting with surgical precision. This high-octane pacing and elite decision-making drove a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 20.5m -8.2
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Obi Toppin 15.9m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Constant late closeouts and poor weak-side awareness hemorrhaged points on the defensive end. While he provided a spark by flawlessly executing as a pick-and-pop threat, he gave it all right back by getting bullied on the glass. The defensive bleeding ultimately overshadowed a highly efficient perimeter shooting display.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 15.9m -6.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 15.6m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Stretching the floor as a trail big completely warped the opponent's defensive rotations and opened up the paint. He paired this perimeter gravity with excellent verticality at the rim, altering multiple drives without committing fouls. This highly specialized two-way role execution maximized his value in a short stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 15.6m -6.2
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Executed his screening assignments perfectly during a brief rotational appearance to free up the primary ball-handlers. He maintained excellent verticality on a crucial defensive possession to force a missed layup. This disciplined, mistake-free basketball ensured a net positive result in highly limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 4.3m -1.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 36.7m
29
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+8.3

Relentless paint touches and foul-drawing masked a completely broken outside stroke. He kept the offense afloat by methodically breaking down his primary defender in isolation and creating high-quality looks out of the pick-and-roll. Even without the deep ball falling, his gravitational pull in the midrange dictated the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 36.7m -14.8
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Landry Shamet 36.6m
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Exceptional off-ball movement and relentless closeouts salvaged an otherwise icy shooting night. He generated significant value by chasing loose balls and keeping offensive possessions alive, masking his perimeter struggles. That sheer motor kept his overall impact hovering just above water despite the clanking jumpers.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +9.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 36.6m -14.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S OG Anunoby 34.3m
25
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.3

Aggressive downhill drives and elite off-ball cutting generated a massive offensive rating spike. He consistently punished defensive mismatches in the mid-post, translating into a highly efficient scoring surge. Elite weak-side rotations and active hands further cemented his dominant two-way footprint.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 34.3m -13.8
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
22
reb
0
ast
Impact
+19.0

Complete domination of the painted area fueled an astronomical defensive rating. By relentlessly securing extra possessions through tip-outs and altering nearly every shot in the restricted area, he single-handedly dictated the game's tempo. His vertical gravity on rim-runs forced the defense into constant rotation, opening up the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +10.5
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 30.6m -12.3
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 29.9m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

A passive offensive approach and perimeter hesitation dragged down his overall value. While he offered mild resistance at the point of attack, his reluctance to hunt his own shot allowed the defense to sag and disrupt the team's spacing. The lack of assertiveness ultimately resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 29.9m -12.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Forced attempts early in the shot clock and a total lack of secondary effort plays severely damaged the team's momentum. His inability to convert at the rim allowed the opposition to leak out for easy transition opportunities. Without any disruptive defensive plays to compensate, his minutes were a distinct negative.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 19.8m -8.0
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Tunnel vision on drives and highly contested midrange pull-ups short-circuited several offensive possessions. Although he brought decent energy to the defensive glass, his erratic shot selection fueled long opponent rebounds and fast breaks. The resulting inefficiency outweighed any marginal gains from his defensive activity.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 18.9m -7.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Complete offensive invisibility allowed the opposing frontcourt to completely ignore him in the half-court. While he showed flashes of physical rim deterrence, his inability to command the ball or set impactful screens bogged down the second-unit spacing. The resulting offensive stagnation dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 13.5m -5.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.6

Getting consistently targeted on switches completely neutralized his usual point-of-attack peskiness. He failed to attempt a single shot, allowing his defender to roam freely and clog the driving lanes for teammates. This combination of defensive vulnerability and offensive passivity resulted in a steep negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.6
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 13.3m -5.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

A brief rotational cameo yielded minimal disruption to the team's overall flow. He stayed within the offensive structure and executed basic defensive assignments without making costly mistakes. This low-usage stint provided exactly the stabilizing filler minutes the second unit required.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 6.5m -2.6
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0