GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

IND Indiana Pacers
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Poor shot selection from the perimeter severely undercut his offensive value, dragging his total impact into the red (-2.8). He settled for heavily contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint, bailing out the defense with empty trips. A negative defensive rating (-1.4) showed he was a step slow on closeouts all night.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -33.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.4
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 31.6m -13.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 30.0m
7
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.9

Brick after brick from the perimeter absolutely torpedoed his overall value (-6.9). He generated decent looks for others, but his inability to punish defenders for going under screens stalled the half-court offense. Getting beat off the dribble defensively (-1.5) compounded the damage from his shooting woes.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -42.6
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 30.0m -13.0
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Pascal Siakam 28.7m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

An uncharacteristically inefficient night from the floor suppressed his usual dominant impact (-1.5 total). He struggled to find his rhythm against physical post defense, resulting in a high volume of missed field goals late in the shot clock. While he remained engaged defensively (+3.0), the offensive drop-off was too steep to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 28.7m -12.4
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jay Huff 24.9m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.8

Anchored the game with an elite defensive performance (+10.2) that completely deterred drives to the rim. His ability to stretch the floor from the center position opened up driving lanes for the guards. Combining rim protection with high-end hustle (+3.5) made him the most impactful player on the court (+12.8).

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +10.2
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 24.9m -10.7
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
S Ethan Thompson 23.9m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

A complete lack of offensive rhythm cratered his net impact (-10.8) during his extended run. He failed to connect on a single field goal, turning possessions into empty trips that fueled opponent fast breaks. Poor defensive positioning (-0.8) only worsened a highly forgettable performance.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 23.9m -10.3
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.8

Relentless interior energy drove a massive positive impact (+10.8) as he controlled the paint on both ends. He generated crucial second-chance opportunities through sheer physical dominance on the glass. A stout defensive rating (+6.2) highlighted his ability to alter shots without fouling.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.2
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 23.1m -10.0
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Snapping a streak of highly efficient games, his erratic shot profile ultimately yielded a negative net score (-1.6). He forced too many contested mid-range looks instead of utilizing his physical tools to attack the basket. Minor positive contributions in hustle and defense couldn't fully offset the wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 22.2m -9.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

High-motor play and timely floor spacing resulted in a solid net positive (+2.8) for the second unit. He maximized his minutes by diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes (+3.5 hustle). Knocking down key perimeter shots kept the defense honest and opened up the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 18.6m -8.0
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

Despite his usual pesky defense (+1.2), a lack of offensive aggression and likely ball-security issues dragged his total impact deep into the red (-6.4). He failed to collapse the defense with his typical paint touches, leading to stagnant half-court sets. The second unit bled points during his rotation as the offense lost its usual tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 15.5m -6.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A highly efficient but overly passive stint left him with a slightly negative overall footprint (-0.8). He capitalized on the few spot-up opportunities he received but failed to assert himself within the flow of the offense. Mild defensive contributions (+0.9) weren't enough to swing his minutes into positive territory.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 13.5m -5.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A disastrously brief stint saw his impact crater (-5.0) due to completely empty offensive possessions. He forced bad looks at the rim and failed to convert a single field goal, instantly killing the team's momentum. The coaching staff had to pull him quickly as the offensive flow completely evaporated.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 8.0m -3.4
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 36.3m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Despite flashing solid defensive instincts (+5.5) and active hands, his overall rating slipped into the red (-2.3). The damage came primarily from erratic shot selection from deep and stalled offensive sets when he forced the issue. He needs to tighten his decision-making to translate those hustle plays into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 36.3m -15.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 35.9m
9
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.5

A stark contrast between his defensive value (+6.4) and his overall negative impact (-4.5) tells the story of a rough offensive outing. Inefficient perimeter shot selection and empty possessions dragged down his net score. He operated well as a connector, but the heavy volume of missed looks ultimately stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 35.9m -15.5
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 29.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S CJ McCollum 34.1m
18
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

High-volume shot selection yielded a solid box metric (+10.9), but his overall impact barely broke even (+0.1). The sheer number of empty offensive trips from missed mid-range pull-ups negated his scoring value. He survived on defense (+2.2) but couldn't generate enough separation to tilt the game.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 34.1m -14.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.2

Elite defensive metrics (+9.0) and high-end hustle stats (+4.3) drove a massive positive impact. He consistently generated extra possessions by dominating the glass and disrupting passing lanes. The scoring efficiency was just the icing on a primarily blue-collar performance.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +9.0
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 33.0m -14.2
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
23
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.5

An absolute force on the interior, generating a massive box score impact (+22.7) through highly efficient finishing around the rim. He punished mismatches in the paint to nearly double his usual scoring output without needing a three-point shot. Solid defensive positioning (+3.6) ensured he didn't give those points right back.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/10 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +22.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +28.3
Avg player in 32.0m -13.8
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Will Riley 22.5m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Opportunistic scoring cuts kept his box score impact afloat (+7.9), though his overall influence was relatively muted (+1.3). He brought excellent energy to 50/50 balls (+3.3 hustle) but struggled to navigate screens defensively (-0.1). The lack of playmaking limited his ability to elevate the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 22.5m -9.8
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Perimeter struggles completely tanked his overall impact (-8.8) during a brief stint on the floor. Forcing heavily contested, off-target looks from beyond the arc led to empty trips and transition opportunities for the opponent. A slight negative on defense (-0.6) only compounded the offensive woes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 16.0m -6.9
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Tre Johnson 15.7m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

Blistering perimeter efficiency fueled a massive statistical bump (+12.6 box score impact) in limited action. He capitalized on broken defensive rotations to knock down high-value looks from deep at an elite clip. Active closeouts on the other end (+2.1 defense) solidified a superb two-way sparkplug performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 15.7m -6.8
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Extreme offensive passivity and defensive lapses (-2.2) resulted in a heavily negative net score (-5.9). He was practically invisible on the scoring end, failing to pressure the rim or draw defensive attention. The opponent routinely targeted his side of the floor, neutralizing any minor rebounding value he provided.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.2
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 14.5m -6.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1