Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
IND lead MIN lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIN 2P — 3P —
IND 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 162 attempts

MIN MIN Shot-making Δ

Dosunmu 10/17 +1.1
Randle Hard 5/13 +0.4
DiVincenzo Hard 4/12 -1.7
Reid Hard 7/10 +6.9
Hyland Hard 5/9 +4.8
Clark 5/9 +0.8
Conley Hard 3/6 +3.3
Anderson 3/5 +0.7
Gobert Open 2/5 -3.0
Shannon Jr. 1/2 -0.2

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Toppin 4/13 -4.8
Walker Hard 4/12 -2.3
Huff Open 5/9 +0.9
Thompson 4/8 -0.5
Slawson Open 6/7 +4.2
Jones 4/7 +1.3
Jackson Open 2/7 -5.1
Potter 3/5 +1.1
Peter Hard 2/3 +3.0
Brown 1/2 -0.3
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIN
IND
46/89 Field Goals 35/73
51.7% Field Goal % 47.9%
17/41 3-Pointers 9/26
41.5% 3-Point % 34.6%
15/16 Free Throws 25/31
93.8% Free Throw % 80.6%
64.6% True Shooting % 60.0%
47 Total Rebounds 42
10 Offensive 5
29 Defensive 29
27 Assists 24
1.35 Assist/TO Ratio 1.04
18 Turnovers 22
16 Steals 11
4 Blocks 1
22 Fouls 16
54 Points in Paint 50
13 Fast Break Pts 21
34 Points off TOs 20
12 Second Chance Pts 6
57 Bench Points 53
31 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Bones Hyland
19 PTS · 4 REB · 7 AST · 20.7 MIN
+19.34
2
Ayo Dosunmu
24 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 33.1 MIN
+16.77
3
Jaylen Clark
11 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 17.7 MIN
+16.65
4
Naz Reid
17 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 23.8 MIN
+14.23
5
Julius Randle
19 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 27.8 MIN
+13.98
6
Jalen Slawson
14 PTS · 2 REB · 0 AST · 34.4 MIN
+10.53
7
Kyle Anderson
6 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 16.4 MIN
+9.78
8
Kam Jones
9 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 23.1 MIN
+9.72
9
Ethan Thompson
17 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 29.6 MIN
+9.7
10
Taelon Peter
5 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 13.4 MIN
+9.3
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Walker lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (5 TO) 124–104
Q4 0:20 T. Shannon Jr. 21' step back Jump Shot (2 PTS) 124–104
Q4 0:39 J. Beringer REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 122–104
Q4 0:42 MISS T. Peter 31' pullup 3PT 122–104
Q4 0:51 J. Phillips personal FOUL (2 PF) 122–104
Q4 1:02 J. Phillips offensive foul TURNOVER (1 TO) 122–104
Q4 1:02 J. Phillips charge offensive FOUL (1 PF) 122–104
Q4 1:06 J. Slawson driving floating Jump Shot (14 PTS) (J. Huff 3 AST) 122–104
Q4 1:17 J. Beringer driving DUNK (2 PTS) 122–102
Q4 1:30 T. Peter driving DUNK (5 PTS) 120–102
Q4 1:31 T. Peter STEAL (3 STL) 120–100
Q4 1:31 J. Beringer lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 120–100
Q4 1:54 J. Huff 27' 3PT (12 PTS) (J. Walker 5 AST) 120–100
Q4 2:01 T. Peter REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 120–97
Q4 2:04 MISS T. Shannon Jr. driving Layup 120–97

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

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Ethan Thompson 29.6m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.5

Incredible hustle metrics (+5.2) and a knack for drawing contact fueled a highly productive outing. He lived at the free throw line by aggressively attacking closeouts and forcing the issue in the paint. His relentless ball pressure disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm throughout the second half.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +13.1
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarace Walker 28.1m
11
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.1

Elite defensive disruption (+9.0 Def) was completely overshadowed by a disastrous shooting performance. He forced tough, contested jumpers early in the shot clock, short-circuiting offensive possessions. The massive disparity between his weak-side rim protection and offensive inefficiency defined his negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jay Huff 25.7m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Solid pick-and-pop execution (+7.0 Box) was undone by poor pick-and-roll coverage on the other end. He repeatedly dropped too deep, conceding uncontested mid-range jumpers to opposing guards. While his offensive spacing was valuable, he gave back too much ground defensively to post a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -34.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quenton Jackson 24.9m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

Inefficient isolation attempts and a failure to contain dribble penetration resulted in a steep negative rating. He struggled to finish through contact at the rim, leading to empty trips and opponent run-outs. His lack of defensive resistance (+0.3 Def) made him a clear target in pick-and-roll switches.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kobe Brown 16.5m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

A drastic drop in scoring aggression rendered him nearly invisible in the half-court offense. He passed up several open looks, stalling ball movement and allowing the defense to reset. Despite decent positional defense, his offensive passivity dragged down the entire unit's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

A hyper-efficient scoring night (+8.2 Box) was erased by poor off-ball defensive awareness. He frequently lost his man on back-cuts and was slow to rotate over as the low man in help defense. The scoring volume was a pleasant surprise, but his mistakes in the defensive scheme proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Kam Jones 23.1m
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

A lack of secondary effort plays (+0.2 Hustle) limited his overall effectiveness despite efficient scoring. He was often late to loose balls and failed to secure long rebounds, giving the opponent extra bites at the apple. His perimeter shot-making was solid, but a pattern of defensive ball-watching held him back.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 22.3m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggled to anchor the rebounding battle, allowing crucial second-chance points that swung momentum. Although he was efficient with his limited offensive touches, he failed to generate the necessary gravity to open up the floor. Opposing bigs consistently sealed him off deep in the paint, neutralizing his defensive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring +8.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Obi Toppin 22.1m
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Missed layups and clunky interior finishes severely hampered his offensive value. He failed to capitalize on his typical transition opportunities, often forcing the issue against set half-court defenses. While his weak-side rim protection (+3.7 Def) was a bright spot, the wasted offensive possessions kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +7.1
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Taelon Peter 13.4m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Game-changing hustle (+5.7) and lockdown perimeter defense (+8.2 Def) made him an absolute menace on the floor. He sacrificed his body for loose balls and consistently blew up dribble hand-offs at the point of attack. This low-usage, high-intensity performance perfectly illustrated how to dominate a game without scoring.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 33.4m
5
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Elite rim protection (+7.3 Def) couldn't completely mask his offensive invisibility in this matchup. He was entirely neutralized as a roll man, forcing the offense to operate without its usual vertical spacing. A pattern of costly offensive fouls on moving screens further dragged down his overall net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +12.3
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ayo Dosunmu 33.1m
24
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.4

High defensive impact (+8.2) and relentless downhill attacks drove his positive net rating. Despite struggling from beyond the arc, his ability to collapse the defense created high-percentage looks for teammates. His point-of-attack pressure against opposing guards set the tone during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +2.4
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

Poor shot selection from the perimeter severely damaged his offensive efficiency and overall impact. He settled for contested, early-clock triples rather than attacking closeouts, stalling the half-court offense. Minimal hustle contributions (+0.6) meant he couldn't offset the cold shooting with extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 27.8m
19
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.5

A heavy volume of free throw generation and timely outside shooting salvaged a poor interior finishing night. He struggled to score in traffic, relying instead on pick-and-pop spacing to find his rhythm. The lack of secondary hustle plays (+0.8) kept his overall impact muted despite the offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +13.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mike Conley 20.7m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Veteran floor mapping and exceptional defensive positioning (+6.7 Def) anchored his highly effective minutes. He didn't need high usage to dictate the game's tempo, instead relying on timely deflections and smart rotations. His steady hand during a chaotic second-quarter run stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Naz Reid 23.8m
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.6

Highly efficient scoring bursts as a trailer and spacer drove a massive box score impact (+12.3). He exploited mismatches on the perimeter, pulling opposing bigs away from the basket to open up driving lanes. While his defensive metrics were modest, his offensive gravity completely warped the opponent's drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Bones Hyland 20.7m
19
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.1

Explosive shot creation and deep range completely broke the opposing defensive shell. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages masterfully, punishing under-screens with immediate pull-up daggers. This offensive masterclass (+18.4 Box) far outweighed his typical defensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Scoring +15.3
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 17.7m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Suffocating perimeter defense (+7.7 Def) and opportunistic transition scoring resulted in a massive net positive. He turned deflections into immediate fast-break points, completely shifting the momentum in the third quarter. His relentless energy on both ends proved too overwhelming for the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +7.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-IQ connective passing and elite hustle metrics (+4.0) defined a quintessential glue-guy performance. He consistently made the extra rotation on defense and kept offensive possessions alive with crucial tap-outs. His methodical pace neutralized the opponent's transition attack during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.3

A quick stint yielded negative returns due to defensive lapses and a lack of offensive involvement. He was caught ball-watching on a pair of backdoor cuts, conceding easy layups at the rim. Without transition opportunities to utilize his speed, his half-court impact was negligible.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -78.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Struggled to anchor the paint during a short rotational burst, leading to a negative box impact. He was outmuscled on the glass and failed to provide adequate rim deterrence against driving guards. A single made basket couldn't compensate for the defensive breakdowns on his watch.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -78.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Failed to register any meaningful counting stats or hustle metrics during a brief garbage-time cameo. He mostly floated on the perimeter without initiating offensive actions or disrupting passing lanes. The negative score reflects empty minutes where the team lost ground with him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -78.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Provided a slight defensive spark (+0.9 Def) during very limited action at the end of the game. He stayed disciplined on closeouts but wasn't involved enough offensively to swing his overall rating into the green. Mostly served as a warm body to eat the final few minutes of the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -78.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.4

A disastrous three-minute stretch saw him hemorrhage points on defense (-1.5 Def) while providing zero offensive resistance. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, failing to stay in front of quicker matchups on the perimeter. The complete absence of hustle plays compounded an entirely forgettable shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -78.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1