GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Ethan Thompson 29.6m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

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
Offense +12.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense -3.6
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 29.6m -16.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
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
-0.9

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
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +12.8
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 28.1m -15.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
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
-3.2

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
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 25.7m -13.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
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
-5.9

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
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 24.9m -13.5
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
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
-10.1

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
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -3.8
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 16.5m -9.0
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
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
-2.1

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
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 34.4m -18.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
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
-4.3

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
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 23.1m -12.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
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
-3.6

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
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 22.3m -12.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
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
-2.4

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
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 22.1m -12.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
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
+9.0

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
Offense +2.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 13.4m -7.3
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
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
+0.3

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
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.4
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 33.4m -18.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
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
+1.5

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
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 33.1m -17.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
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
-9.0

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
Offense +7.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 30.7m -16.7
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
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
+5.0

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
Offense +12.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 27.8m -15.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
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
+0.5

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
Offense +2.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 20.7m -11.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
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
-0.8

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
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.9
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 23.8m -12.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
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
+10.7

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
Offense +19.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 20.7m -11.2
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
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
+9.3

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
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 17.7m -9.6
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
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
+1.8

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
Offense +4.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 16.4m -8.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
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
-2.9

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
Offense -1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

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
Offense -1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
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
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
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
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

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
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1