Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
BKN lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
BKN 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 194 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Potter Open 8/15 -1.4
Walker 5/15 -5.7
Toppin Open 11/14 +4.0
Thompson Hard 6/12 +2.6
Jackson Open 5/11 -3.3
Slawson 5/10 -0.3
Peter Hard 3/8 -0.1
Jones Open 2/7 -4.5
Huff Open 6/6 +4.1

BKN BKN Shot-making Δ

Etienne 5/17 -4.7
Liddell 10/16 +5.5
Saraf Open 8/16 -3.1
Scott 5/16 -8.7
Smith 4/13 -6.1
Wilson Hard 4/11 -1.7
Powell 1/7 -5.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
BKN
51/98 Field Goals 37/96
52.0% Field Goal % 38.5%
8/31 3-Pointers 8/38
25.8% 3-Point % 21.1%
13/18 Free Throws 12/19
72.2% Free Throw % 63.2%
58.1% True Shooting % 45.0%
68 Total Rebounds 51
13 Offensive 7
53 Defensive 36
43 Assists 20
3.58 Assist/TO Ratio 2.00
11 Turnovers 10
4 Steals 2
5 Blocks 5
16 Fouls 21
80 Points in Paint 56
36 Fast Break Pts 6
12 Points off TOs 9
11 Second Chance Pts 7
52 Bench Points 13
32 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Obi Toppin
26 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 18.6 MIN
+29.69
2
Micah Potter
18 PTS · 14 REB · 2 AST · 23.2 MIN
+19.51
3
Jay Huff
14 PTS · 7 REB · 3 AST · 24.8 MIN
+19.23
4
E.J. Liddell
26 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 36.6 MIN
+18.79
5
Jalen Slawson
12 PTS · 7 REB · 5 AST · 28.7 MIN
+13.71
6
Ethan Thompson
15 PTS · 7 REB · 6 AST · 37.3 MIN
+13.69
7
Ben Saraf
19 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 27.7 MIN
+13.33
8
Jarace Walker
14 PTS · 9 REB · 8 AST · 29.6 MIN
+11.33
9
Trevon Scott
11 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 39.6 MIN
+11.16
10
Malachi Smith
11 PTS · 8 REB · 6 AST · 40.2 MIN
+8.27
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:16 IND shot clock Team TURNOVER 123–94
Q4 0:37 T. Peter REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 123–94
Q4 0:40 MISS T. Etienne 20' Jump Shot 123–94
Q4 0:51 T. Peter lost ball out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 123–94
Q4 0:57 J. Slawson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 123–94
Q4 0:59 MISS M. Smith 25' 3PT 123–94
Q4 1:09 T. Etienne REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 123–94
Q4 1:09 MISS M. Potter tip Layup 123–94
Q4 1:09 M. Potter REBOUND (Off:5 Def:9) 123–94
Q4 1:14 MISS E. Thompson 27' 3PT 123–94
Q4 1:28 E. Thompson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 123–94
Q4 1:31 MISS T. Etienne Free Throw 2 of 2 123–94
Q4 1:31 TEAM offensive REBOUND 123–94
Q4 1:31 MISS T. Etienne Free Throw 1 of 2 123–94
Q4 1:31 E. Thompson personal FOUL (3 PF) (Etienne 2 FT) 123–94

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

BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Malachi Smith 40.2m
11
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.8

A brutal pattern of settling for contested perimeter looks destroyed his offensive efficiency. Despite logging heavy minutes, the constant clanking of jumpers generated long rebounds that fueled opponent transition attacks.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Trevon Scott 39.6m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Exceptional defensive rotations single-handedly salvaged what would have been a disastrous net rating. A massive volume of empty offensive trips and bricked jumpers severely capped his overall value despite the high energy.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.5%
USG% 16.8%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +8.2
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tyson Etienne 38.8m
14
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.4

Shot selection was highly questionable all night, leading to a barrage of empty possessions that tanked his net impact. Compounding the offensive struggles, poor defensive awareness allowed opponents to capitalize on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.5
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S E.J. Liddell 36.6m
26
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.3

Continuing a dominant streak of hyper-efficient shooting, he systematically dismantled defensive coverages to generate a massive positive impact. His ability to score at all three levels anchored the offensive attack and drove a highly positive overall shift.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.4
Hustle +8.8
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ben Saraf 27.7m
19
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.5

Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, he found immense success attacking the teeth of the defense rather than settling. This aggressive downhill pattern drove a strong positive impact, even with his perimeter stroke remaining completely absent.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 37.0m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Failed to generate meaningful offensive traction, resulting in a string of empty trips that stalled team momentum. A lack of finishing at the rim prevented him from establishing any rhythm, leading to a heavily negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Drake Powell 20.1m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-19.1

Offensive production completely vanished as he repeatedly forced bad looks against set defenses. The resulting empty trips stalled team momentum and dragged his net impact down to a brutal negative rating during a rough stint.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -39.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring -3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
IND Indiana Pacers
S Ethan Thompson 37.3m
15
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.9

Consistent perimeter execution drove a strong box score rating during his extended run as the primary initiator. Despite the steady offensive flow, defensive lapses at the point of attack kept his overall net impact surprisingly muted.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jarace Walker 29.6m
14
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.4

Defensive disruption kept his head above water during a remarkably rough offensive showing. A heavy volume of clanked jumpers suppressed his net impact. Ultimately, this poor shot selection completely neutralized the value of his aggressive downhill attacks.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +7.5
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Slawson 28.7m
12
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.4

Elite activity level defined this outing, as an exceptional hustle rating fueled transition opportunities for the second unit. Breaking out of a recent slump, he capitalized on high-percentage looks inside the arc. This combination of energy and efficient finishing drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quenton Jackson 26.3m
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.4

Empty possessions and a lack of defensive resistance undermined an otherwise decent offensive rhythm. He struggled to leverage his touches into meaningful team momentum, resulting in a negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Micah Potter 23.2m
18
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.9

Bullying smaller defenders in the paint allowed him to generate highly efficient interior offense. The resulting dominance around the rim offset a cold night from the perimeter, anchoring the frontcourt production.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +12.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Taelon Peter 29.8m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.4

Relentless energy plays defined his minutes, constantly generating extra possessions via loose ball recoveries. Unfortunately, a string of forced, contested jumpers prevented those extra opportunities from translating into a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jay Huff 24.8m
14
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Flawless shot selection anchored a dominant net impact during his rotation minutes. By refusing to settle for bad looks, he converted perfectly from the field to punish late defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense -3.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
Kam Jones 21.7m
4
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-18.6

Impact cratered due to an inability to find any rhythm against physical perimeter defense. Forcing up contested looks led to a sharp drop in production, stalling out the offense whenever he initiated sets.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Obi Toppin 18.6m
26
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+29.6

Total domination around the rim resulted in a staggering positive impact on the game. By eliminating low-percentage jumpers from his diet, he maximized every touch. This disciplined approach allowed him to completely break the game open against a mismatched frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +59.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Scoring +23.5
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0