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

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
S Ethan Thompson 38.2m
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.0

Strong offensive orchestration (+3.5 creation) and efficient scoring (+10.8) were heavily mitigated by disastrous ball security (-7.1 turnover cost). He managed to stay positive through solid shot-making (+3.6) and hustle (+3.8), but the sloppy giveaways prevented a true breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +10.8
Creation +3.5
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kobe Brown 34.5m
20
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.6

Powering a dominant two-way performance, his highly efficient scoring output (+14.6) and massive hustle metrics (+7.9) set the tone. While his aggressive play led to notable turnover damage (-4.7), his ability to hit tough jumpers (+5.3 shot-making) and defend effectively (+3.2) easily outweighed the mistakes.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Micah Potter 34.3m
15
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.4

Astounding work on the glass (+13.0 hustle) and highly efficient floor-spacing (+9.4 scoring) drove a massive positive impact. However, a catastrophic turnover penalty (-9.5) nearly derailed his night, showcasing a volatile mix of dominant finishing and reckless decision-making.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +13.0
Defense +4.1
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Quenton Jackson 29.7m
21
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.4

Lethal offensive efficiency (+14.8 scoring) and suffocating perimeter defense (+5.5) fueled a highly productive outing. Though he offered zero hustle value (+0.0) and committed a few costly giveaways (-2.4 TO), his ability to convert tough looks (+2.9 shot-making) cemented his status as a bench revelation.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +5.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Slawson 27.1m
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

An otherworldly defensive performance (+10.2) single-handedly kept his impact score in the green despite total offensive passivity. He offered virtually nothing in terms of scoring (+0.2) or creation (+0.2), but flawless ball security (+0.0 TO) ensured his defensive masterclass wasn't wasted.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +10.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 0
Jay Huff 23.9m
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Ultimately dragging his value into the negative, a maddening tug-of-war between efficient scoring (+10.0) and catastrophic ball security (-7.8 turnover penalty) defined his night. Despite solid hustle (+3.8), his defensive lapses (-1.7) and self-sabotaging giveaways erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.7
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 3
Kam Jones 20.0m
8
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

Modest scoring efficiency (+5.0) was entirely undone by a lack of defensive presence (+0.0) and costly turnovers (-2.4). His inability to generate meaningful creation (+0.5) left him operating as a low-impact spacer who bled value through mistakes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Obi Toppin 18.1m
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Explosive offensive execution (+17.2 scoring) and elite shot-making (+6.6) carried his overall value despite glaring defensive liabilities. His defensive bleeding (-1.6) and sloppy turnovers (-3.5) highlighted his one-dimensional impact, but his scoring gravity was simply too overwhelming to ignore.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Scoring +17.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +6.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Taelon Peter 14.1m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Total offensive invisibility (-0.8 scoring, +0.0 creation) doomed his rotational stint despite a solid defensive effort (+2.1). He managed to avoid turnover damage (+0.0), but his failure to pressure the rim or space the floor rendered him a liability on one end of the court.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Tobias Harris 21.8m
24
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+26.5

Flawless ball security and a massive scoring output (+21.9) fueled an elite overall performance for the veteran forward. His shot-making bonus (+5.9) and stout defensive metrics (+5.5) show he was converting difficult looks while simultaneously shutting down his assignments on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +21.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cade Cunningham 21.8m
7
pts
8
reb
14
ast
Impact
-4.1

Catastrophic turnover damage (-9.5) completely derailed what was otherwise a masterful rebounding and playmaking performance. Even with elite hustle metrics (+10.2) and solid creation value (+3.8), his reckless decision-making with the ball in his hands sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 29.2%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring +0.4
Creation +3.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ausar Thompson 21.7m
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite strong scoring efficiency (+5.9) and active work on the glass (+2.5 hustle), his overall value was hindered by poor ball security. The turnover penalty (-2.4) and a lack of meaningful playmaking creation (+0.2) highlighted his ongoing struggle to operate efficiently within the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +54.2
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paul Reed 21.7m
26
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+33.6

Absolute dominance around the rim drove a monstrous impact score, highlighted by a flawless scoring metric (+26.0) and zero turnover damage. His relentless motor was on full display, generating massive value through both hustle (+7.6) and defensive disruption (+7.0) to completely hijack the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 11/11 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.9%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +54.2
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +26.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense +7.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 21.7m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

While his scoring (+8.2) and shot-making (+2.2) metrics remained positive, hidden costs on the other end erased his offensive contributions. Defensive bleeding (-1.6) and costly turnovers (-2.4) exposed his vulnerabilities when forced to put the ball on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +54.2
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.0

A pristine two-way showing was anchored by flawless ball security (+0.0 TO) and surprisingly elite defensive metrics (+7.1). He paired this off-ball discipline with lethal scoring efficiency (+11.3) and a strong shot-making bonus (+3.8), proving highly effective without needing to dominate possession.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +7.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.1

Significant defensive bleeding (-2.9) and costly turnovers (-2.4) caused his value to plummet during a disastrous two-way showing. Without any playmaking creation (+0.0) to offset his negative scoring metric (-0.2), his high-energy motor failed to translate into positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-17.9

Cratering his overall value, an absolute nightmare in ball security (-9.5 turnover cost) erased any positives from his decent hustle metrics (+3.4). His offensive rhythm flatlined, resulting in a negative scoring impact (-2.0) that his minor creation value (+1.4) could not salvage.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.6

Bruising interior play drove a highly effective stint, heavily weighted by excellent scoring efficiency (+14.0) and relentless hustle (+6.3). The only blemish on his physical brand of basketball was a noticeable turnover cost (-3.5), though his ability to convert tough looks (+2.8 shot-making) kept his overall value firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Caris LeVert 14.3m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

Brutal ball security issues (-4.7 turnover penalty) and defensive lapses (-1.6) completely undermined his brief rotational cameo. He managed a slight positive in scoring (+3.9), but his inability to generate creation (+0.7) while bleeding value elsewhere ground the second unit to a halt.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Pure chaotic energy translated into a modest positive impact, driven entirely by his defensive disruption (+2.4) and activity on the glass (+2.8 hustle). He operated as a highly efficient finisher (+5.3 scoring) without committing a single turnover, perfectly executing a low-usage, high-motor role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

A brief, invisible rotational cameo was sunk almost entirely by sloppy ball-handling (-2.4 turnover penalty). He offered zero resistance defensively (+0.0) and failed to register any hustle stats, making his meager scoring contribution (+1.2) irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Operating as an offensive black hole, his inability to generate any creation (+0.0) or hustle stats (+0.0) left him entirely dependent on low-volume scoring (+0.9). A slight defensive penalty (-0.3) further highlighted a passive stint where he failed to leave any meaningful imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 5.9m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Solid interior activity (+3.8 hustle) and efficient finishing (+3.8 scoring) were largely offset by his overall lack of rotational gravity. While he avoided turnover damage (+0.0), a minor defensive negative (-0.3) kept his brief appearance in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Yielding a slight scoring positive (+2.0), his trigger-happy mentality was doomed by a complete lack of peripheral contributions. Zero creation, zero hustle, and zero defensive value, combined with a minor turnover penalty (-1.1), exposed his inability to affect the game beyond hunting shots.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1