Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead LAC lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
LAC 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

LAC LAC Shot-making Δ

Leonard 13/26 +0.9
Garland Hard 10/19 +10.0
Lopez Hard 6/11 +4.0
Mathurin 2/8 -3.8
Jones Jr. Open 2/7 -4.8
Collins 2/6 -0.7
Miller Open 2/6 -3.6
Dunn 1/6 -4.5
Batum Hard 1/5 -1.4
Jackson Open 2/2 +1.2

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Siakam 4/16 -8.6
Nesmith 10/14 +8.8
Nembhard Hard 4/13 -1.8
Toppin 8/11 +7.7
Potter 5/8 +3.7
Brown 4/8 0.0
Jackson 3/5 +1.5
Huff 1/4 -1.6
Walker 2/3 +1.5
Sheppard 1/3 -1.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
LAC
IND
41/96 Field Goals 43/87
42.7% Field Goal % 49.4%
13/34 3-Pointers 16/36
38.2% 3-Point % 44.4%
19/27 Free Throws 11/15
70.4% Free Throw % 73.3%
52.8% True Shooting % 60.4%
56 Total Rebounds 56
16 Offensive 10
30 Defensive 35
20 Assists 34
1.67 Assist/TO Ratio 1.70
11 Turnovers 20
12 Steals 6
4 Blocks 4
19 Fouls 24
46 Points in Paint 42
14 Fast Break Pts 12
27 Points off TOs 28
21 Second Chance Pts 18
31 Bench Points 55
3 Largest Lead 24
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Kawhi Leonard
28 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 34.5 MIN
+28.09
2
Obi Toppin
20 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 22.9 MIN
+20.47
3
Darius Garland
30 PTS · 0 REB · 5 AST · 34.5 MIN
+16.44
4
Brook Lopez
16 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 33.2 MIN
+16.04
5
Aaron Nesmith
26 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 35.4 MIN
+15.64
6
Kobe Brown
11 PTS · 4 REB · 3 AST · 26.8 MIN
+15.02
7
Bennedict Mathurin
17 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 29.2 MIN
+11.29
8
Micah Potter
13 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 15.9 MIN
+11.04
9
John Collins
5 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 19.9 MIN
+10.16
10
Andrew Nembhard
13 PTS · 1 REB · 10 AST · 32.2 MIN
+7.31
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–113
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Huff Free Throw 2 of 2 114–113
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–113
Q4 0:00 MISS J. Huff Free Throw 1 of 2 114–113
Q4 0:00 B. Lopez loose ball personal FOUL (3 PF) (Huff 2 FT) 114–113
Q4 0:00 P. Siakam REBOUND (Off:0 Def:6) 114–113
Q4 0:00 MISS B. Mathurin Free Throw 2 of 2 114–113
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–113
Q4 0:00 MISS B. Mathurin Free Throw 1 of 2 114–113
Q4 0:00 A. Nesmith take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Mathurin 2 FT) 114–113
Q4 0:00 A. Nembhard inbound TURNOVER (2 TO) 114–113
Q4 0:01 K. Leonard 7' pullup Jump Shot (28 PTS) (B. Mathurin 1 AST) 114–113
Q4 0:07 B. Lopez REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 112–113
Q4 0:09 MISS P. Siakam 11' turnaround fadeaway Shot 112–113
Q4 0:31 D. Garland Free Throw 2 of 2 (30 PTS) 112–113

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Aaron Nesmith 35.4m
26
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.9

Punished the defense with lethal spot-up shooting, capitalizing on every breakdown in perimeter coverage. His offensive explosion was the primary driver of his positive impact, though his defensive metrics were surprisingly muted for a wing stopper. A brilliant scoring display that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Scoring +22.6
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +6.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Pascal Siakam 32.7m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.5

Suffered a catastrophic offensive outing, short-arming mid-range jumpers and forcing contested looks at the rim. The sheer volume of wasted possessions derailed the team's half-court execution and fueled opponent transition opportunities. Even his usual hustle on the glass couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -13.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Andrew Nembhard 32.2m
13
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-1.4

Orchestrated the offense well as a playmaker, but his inability to convert his own looks dragged down his net impact. Settled for too many contested floaters and deep threes that bailed out the defense. The poor shot selection negated the value of his high-level distribution.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jay Huff 20.3m
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.6

Generated solid defensive value through rim deterrence, but his offensive struggles severely limited his effectiveness. Missed several easy finishes inside, breaking his streak of reliable interior scoring. The lack of offensive touch ultimately outweighed his rim-protection efforts.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 4.4m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Maximized a very brief cameo by decisively attacking closeouts and converting his looks. Kept his highly efficient shooting streak alive with smart, within-the-flow shot selection. Provided a quick offensive spark before returning to the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 26.8m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.6

Dominated the margins with relentless energy, securing loose balls and generating extra possessions. His defensive versatility allowed the team to switch seamlessly across multiple positions. Continued his streak of efficient finishing while acting as a massive two-way catalyst off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Obi Toppin 22.9m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.1

Blew the game open with a spectacular shooting display, stretching the floor and finishing explosively in transition. His offensive gravity completely warped the opposing frontcourt's rotation scheme. Thrived as a dynamic scoring weapon, easily masking his relatively quiet defensive output.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +8.2
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 18.6m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.2

Was largely invisible during his minutes, failing to impact the game offensively while struggling to stay in front of his assignments. The lack of perimeter assertiveness allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. A highly detrimental stint characterized by passive play and defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 15.9m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Provided excellent spacing as a stretch big, knocking down pick-and-pop looks with confidence. Held his own defensively by maintaining verticality at the rim and executing drop coverages perfectly. A highly effective reserve stint that kept the offensive spacing pristine.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Uncharacteristically passive on the offensive end, failing to probe the paint and collapse the defense as he usually does. The lack of aggression broke his streak of high-impact scoring games and stalled the second unit's rhythm. Simply didn't generate enough rim pressure to create his typical chaotic value.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.2%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

Kept his efficient shooting streak alive by picking his spots carefully in transition. However, he struggled to make a tangible impact on the defensive end, getting caught on screens too easily. A quiet, break-even performance that didn't tilt the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +5.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Made a brief but positive impact through active hands and solid rotational defense. Knew his role perfectly, avoiding forced shots while focusing entirely on defensive execution. Scraped together a net-positive rating purely through effort on the less glamorous end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 34.5m
28
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+32.4

Generated massive offensive value through relentless mid-range isolation scoring, easily offsetting his struggles from beyond the arc. His elite point-of-attack defense stifled opposing wings, driving a massive two-way impact. Maintained his recent offensive rhythm while anchoring the perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +18.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +6.8
Hustle +9.2
Defense +5.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 34.5m
30
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.9

Carried the offensive load with a barrage of pull-up threes, punishing defenders who went under screens. However, his overall impact was heavily muted by defensive porousness at the point of attack. The scoring explosion masked how much ground he surrendered on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +23.7
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +7.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Brook Lopez 33.2m
16
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.6

Stretched the floor beautifully as a trail big, hitting timely perimeter shots that pulled the opposing center away from the rim. His drop coverage execution was flawless, deterring drives and altering shots in the paint. A highly efficient two-way performance that stabilized the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +12.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +9.5
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Offensive limitations severely capped his value, as missed finishes at the rim stalled half-court momentum. While he provided his usual energy and vertical spacing, the lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag off. Failed to generate enough defensive disruption to compensate for the empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S John Collins 19.9m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Defensive rotations and rim protection kept his overall impact in the green despite a sharp drop in offensive usage. Failed to capitalize on his usual scoring opportunities, breaking a streak of highly efficient shooting nights. Still found ways to contribute through timely help defense in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.7

Struggled to find his touch on drives, throwing away possessions with forced attempts in traffic. Managed to salvage some value by competing hard on the defensive end and staying attached to shooters. Ultimately, the inefficient shot diet dragged his net impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 12/15 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +8.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Dunn 20.6m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Provided excellent ball pressure and disrupted passing lanes, but his offensive ineptitude created a severe bottleneck. Defenses completely ignored him on the perimeter, clogging the paint for his teammates. The defensive tenacity simply couldn't outweigh the spacing issues he caused.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring -1.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Made his mark entirely through veteran defensive positioning and timely weak-side help. His shooting slump continued with several bricked spot-up attempts, but he never let the offensive struggles affect his defensive motor. Acted as a vital connective piece on the backline despite the empty scoring line.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring -0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Saw limited action and couldn't establish his usual vertical threat in the pick-and-roll. His defensive rotations were a step slow, allowing easy interior looks that tanked his overall rating. Snapped a streak of high-impact games due to an inability to anchor the paint during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Failed to match his recent offensive efficiency, rushing shots against set defenses. Showed flashes of solid positional defense, but couldn't generate enough secondary scoring to stay on the floor. A step back from his usual reliable bench production.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1