GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Jalen Slawson 37.2m
17
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Completely flipped the script from recent struggles by aggressively attacking the rim and finishing through contact. His high-motor closeouts on the perimeter stifled the opposing wings, anchoring a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 37.2m -22.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jarace Walker 32.6m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.7

Settled for contested mid-range jumpers instead of attacking closeouts, breaking a strong streak of high-percentage finishing. His lack of off-ball movement bogged down the half-court offense, severely dragging down his overall net rating despite decent defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 32.6m -19.8
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Aaron Nesmith 26.3m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Over-aggressiveness on defense led to costly fouls that bailed out the opponent late in the shot clock. While he found some success slashing to the basket, his inability to stay disciplined on the perimeter ultimately hurt the team's defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 26.3m -15.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 23.4m
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Generated massive value through sheer physicality, repeatedly establishing deep post position to draw fouls and collapse the defense. Even with a slew of missed bunnies around the rim, his offensive rebounding kept possessions alive and wore down the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 23.4m -14.3
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S T.J. McConnell 20.4m
7
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.8

Masterfully orchestrated the pick-and-roll to rack up assists, yet his defensive limitations at the point of attack were frequently exploited. A few ill-timed gambles for steals compromised the backside rotation, resulting in easy layups that negated his playmaking brilliance.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 20.4m -12.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jay Huff 20.5m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided a steady, albeit unspectacular, presence by setting bruising screens that freed up the guards. His tendency to drop too deep in coverage allowed uncontested floaters, neutralizing the positive gains from his efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 20.5m -12.5
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.6

Injected massive energy into the second unit by relentlessly pushing the pace and generating high-quality looks in transition. His active hands on defense sparked multiple fast breaks, showcasing a perfect blend of offensive efficiency and disruptive point-of-attack pressure.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 20.4m -12.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Brown 20.3m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Flawless shot execution was undermined by a tendency to get caught ball-watching on the defensive glass, conceding crucial second-chance points. His reluctance to assert himself offensively in the half-court allowed the defense to completely ignore him when he didn't have the ball.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 20.3m -12.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Ben Sheppard 18.7m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, frequently losing his man and giving up open catch-and-shoot opportunities. Although he knocked down a couple of timely perimeter shots, his defensive lapses and lack of secondary playmaking kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 18.7m -11.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Taelon Peter 12.9m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Maximized limited minutes by flying around the court to secure loose balls and disrupt passing lanes. A sudden burst of confident perimeter shooting punished the defense for going under screens, providing a massive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 12.9m -7.8
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 7.2m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Looked completely out of sync during a disastrous short stint, forcing bad passes that immediately triggered opponent fast breaks. His lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack forced the entire unit to scramble, leading to a swift exit to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 7.2m -4.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jrue Holiday 32.0m
15
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.5

Defensive ball pressure and active hands in passing lanes generated consistent disruption against the opposing backcourt. However, his overall impact was muted by a few costly live-ball turnovers during transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 32.0m -19.4
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 31.9m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.7

Shot selection cratered his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. A severe drop-off from his recent efficient scoring stretch allowed defenders to sag off and disrupt the offense's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 31.9m -19.4
Impact -16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deni Avdija 31.6m
32
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Inefficient volume dragged down an otherwise productive stat line, as he struggled to finish through contact on drives. Despite the massive scoring output, his tendency to stall the offense with isolation plays limited his overall net positive influence.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 13/16 (81.2%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 37.8%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.3
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 31.6m -19.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Toumani Camara 30.0m
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Relentless activity on the margins drove a highly positive outing, highlighted by crucial loose-ball recoveries that extended possessions. His ability to hit timely spot-up threes punished defensive rotations and kept the floor perfectly spaced.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 30.0m -18.3
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Donovan Clingan 25.0m
28
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.6

Completely dominated the paint on both ends, utilizing his massive frame to alter shots at the rim and secure contested rebounds. The breakout scoring explosion was fueled by elite positioning in the dunker spot and decisive rolls to the basket.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +25.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 25.0m -15.2
Impact +22.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 52.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.3

Errant reads in the pick-and-roll led to momentum-killing turnovers that directly fueled the opponent's transition attack. Even with solid defensive effort, his inability to dictate the game's tempo resulted in a disjointed offensive flow while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 26.3m -15.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
2
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Served purely as a defensive anchor and glass-cleaner, content to let others handle the scoring burden. His vertical spacing and shot-alteration in the paint provided a stable floor, though the lack of offensive involvement kept his ceiling low.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 21.5m -13.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Kris Murray 18.0m
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by cutting baseline for easy finishes, showing a sharp understanding of spatial awareness. A lack of secondary hustle plays and minimal rebounding presence kept him from making a deeper dent in the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 18.0m -10.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Wreaked havoc during a short stint by blowing up dribble handoffs and navigating screens with elite agility. His defensive event creation perfectly masked a quiet offensive night, proving his value as a specialized stopper.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 13.6m -8.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 10.1m
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during his brief rotation minutes, often looking hesitant on closeouts. His playmaking flashes were overshadowed by poor spacing and an inability to generate any defensive friction.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 10.1m -6.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0