GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 36.4m
15
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.0

A high volume of live-ball turnovers completely erased the value of his elite playmaking. He frequently forced passes into tight windows, igniting opponent fast breaks that swung the game's momentum. Despite solid shooting efficiency, the sloppy ball security proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 36.4m -21.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 31.3m
30
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless mismatch hunting in the post generated consistent offensive gravity, even when his own shots weren't falling at an elite clip. He absorbed heavy defensive pressure, which opened up passing lanes and created high-quality looks for teammates. Strong defensive rebounding secured possessions and limited second-chance damage.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 41.3%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 31.3m -18.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Quenton Jackson 20.2m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Slashing to the rim with purpose allowed him to capitalize on defensive rotations and finish highly efficient looks. His relentless energy in transition and on loose balls provided a noticeable spark off the bench. Smart, opportunistic play kept his impact firmly positive without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 20.2m -11.6
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Slawson 16.1m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Offensive invisibility and poor spacing severely handicapped the units he played with. While he crashed the glass adequately, his inability to draw defensive attention allowed opponents to freely double-team the primary ball-handlers. The complete lack of scoring threat tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 16.1m -9.2
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently giving up driving lanes that compromised the team's shell. His offensive touches were largely unproductive, stalling out sets with hesitant decision-making. The lack of assertiveness resulted in a noticeable drag on the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 9.9m -5.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Brown 33.4m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.0

Excellent spatial awareness and decisive cutting punished the defense whenever they over-helped. He knocked down spot-up threes with confidence, providing crucial floor spacing that kept the offense humming. Consistent defensive rotations further solidified a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 33.4m -19.4
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 23.2m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Over-passing and a reluctance to shoot allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. While his defensive positioning was fundamentally sound, the offensive stagnation he caused bogged down the second unit. His low-usage passivity ultimately dragged down the lineup's net efficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 23.2m -13.4
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 20.5m
21
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Lethal pick-and-pop execution stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. He capitalized on every open look from the perimeter, completely altering the geometry of the half-court offense. This massive scoring eruption far outweighed a few minor defensive lapses in the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 20.5m -11.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+9.2

Absolute mastery of pace and angle manipulation tore the opposing drop coverage apart. He consistently probed the paint to collapse the defense before spraying out pinpoint passes to shooters. Hyper-efficient finishing around the rim combined with elite orchestration drove a dominant positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 18.3m -10.6
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jay Huff 16.1m
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Imposing rim protection altered multiple shots and discouraged guards from attacking the paint. He set bruising screens that freed up ball-handlers, doing the dirty work that doesn't always flash in the box score. A disciplined approach to his role ensured a steady, positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 16.1m -9.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Obi Toppin 14.6m
12
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Rim-running in transition and explosive vertical spacing generated easy, high-value buckets. He consistently beat his man down the floor, forcing the defense into foul trouble or conceding open dunks. Efficient finishing at the basket easily covered up a relatively quiet defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 14.6m -8.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 37.5m
15
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.3

Defensive intensity and high-level hustle plays kept his value firmly in the green despite a rough shooting night inside the arc. He generated extra possessions and disrupted passing lanes, masking his struggles to finish at the rim. His timely perimeter shooting provided just enough spacing to keep the offense flowing.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 37.5m -21.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 36.4m
31
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite shot creation and perimeter spacing drove a massive positive impact. He consistently punished drop coverage with pull-up jumpers, breaking the defense down during crucial stretches. The sheer volume of high-quality offensive possessions far outweighed his minimal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +25.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 36.4m -21.1
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 35.8m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.2

Despite efficient interior finishing to extend his hot shooting streak, his overall impact cratered into the negatives. Hidden mistakes like blown defensive rotations and giving up momentum-shifting runs overshadowed his offensive efficiency. The scoring volume simply couldn't offset the defensive bleeding during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 35.8m -20.6
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 35.5m
12
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.4

Relentless point-of-attack defense and elite hustle metrics defined this highly efficient outing. He generated immense value by blowing up screens and securing loose balls that extended possessions. Smart shot selection maximized his offensive touches without disrupting the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +8.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 35.5m -20.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Bam Adebayo 33.0m
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

A heavy diet of contested mid-range jumpers dragged down his offensive efficiency and overall impact. While he anchored the defense effectively with strong rim protection, the missed shots fueled opponent transition opportunities. Continuing a recent slump, his inability to convert in the paint severely limited his net value.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 33.0m -19.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Inefficient volume scoring neutralized the value of his aggressive drives to the basket. He forced several contested looks in isolation, which stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to reset. Ultimately, his playmaking and scoring canceled out the damage from his missed shots, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 25.7m -15.0
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 15.1m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Passive offensive positioning and a lack of physicality around the rim limited his effectiveness. Although he offered some solid rim deterrence on the defensive end, his inability to secure contested rebounds gave away crucial second-chance points. The drop-off in aggression compared to recent outings kept his impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 15.1m -8.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Floating on the perimeter rather than attacking gaps resulted in a negligible offensive footprint. He held up reasonably well in defensive rotations, but simply didn't generate enough gravity to bend the defense. A lack of assertiveness during his minutes prevented him from moving the needle.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 12.5m -7.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

A disastrous short stint was defined by forced shots and defensive breakdowns. He failed to find any rhythm, throwing up empty possessions that immediately triggered opponent fast breaks. His severe shooting slump continued, making him an active liability during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 7.2m -4.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Maximized a tiny window of playing time by immediately executing his defensive assignments. He made a quick, decisive cut to the basket that resulted in a high-percentage finish. Perfect execution in garbage time yielded a surprisingly strong per-minute impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -175.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1