GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 27.6m
21
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.3

Utterly dominated the interior by sealing off defenders early and finishing through contact with overwhelming physicality. His vertical spacing in the pick-and-roll forced the defense into impossible choices all night long.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 86.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +28.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 27.6m -19.8
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 25.7m
13
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.3

Careless live-ball turnovers in traffic repeatedly gifted the opposition easy fast-break opportunities. Despite finding teammates effectively, his tendency to over-dribble into crowds neutralized his otherwise solid playmaking.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 25.7m -17.0
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 24.4m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

Smothering point-of-attack defense and elite gap discipline completely disrupted the opponent's primary actions. He consistently turned defense into offense by jumping passing lanes and finishing with authority in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 24.4m -15.6
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 24.4m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defense, creating massive driving lanes for teammates even when he didn't touch the ball. A flurry of contested catch-and-shoot daggers in the third quarter broke the game open.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 24.4m -12.1
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 23.1m
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Bogged down the offense with sticky isolation possessions that resulted in low-quality, contested fadeaways. While his post defense held up, his inability to make quick reads against double teams stalled crucial fourth-quarter possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 23.1m -15.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Wreaked havoc with relentless rim-running and explosive cuts that caught the defense sleeping repeatedly. A sequence of back-to-back weakside blocks showcased a hyper-athletic two-way impact that swung the momentum entirely.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 21.7m -13.7
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.2

Struggled to create separation off the bounce, leading to a string of forced, late-clock floaters that clanked off iron. He salvaged his overall score slightly by playing tenacious on-ball defense during a gritty second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +48.9
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 20.4m -11.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 19.6m
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.6

Methodical pacing in the half-court allowed him to dissect drop coverage and set up teammates with precision. His active hands in the passing lanes during the final frame proved vital in securing the lead.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +46.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 19.6m -12.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.5

A sparkplug of chaotic energy, generating massive value through timely offensive rebounds and diving for loose balls. His ability to blow up dribble handoffs on the perimeter stifled the opponent's secondary actions.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +72.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 15.7m -9.4
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Foul trouble completely derailed his rhythm and forced the coaching staff into awkward rotation adjustments. While he converted his few touches around the basket, he was consistently late on weak-side rim protection.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 10.6m -8.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Paul Reed 9.7m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Capitalized on every dump-off pass by maintaining excellent positioning in the dunker spot. His sturdy screen-setting freed up the guards, making him an unsung hero of a highly efficient offensive stint.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 94.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 9.7m -8.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Looked hesitant when attacking closeouts, often picking up his dribble prematurely and stalling the offense. A blown defensive assignment on a baseline out-of-bounds play highlighted a brief but shaky appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 6.1m -4.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to space the floor or make decisive cuts. Opposing guards easily navigated his screens, leaving the defense compromised during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 5.1m -4.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Pounded the air out of the ball at the top of the key before settling for low-percentage, contested jumpers. His lack of urgency in transition defense allowed easy run-outs that punished the team.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 5.1m -3.4
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 0.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A fleeting appearance marred by a rushed offensive possession and poor positioning on the glass. He was quickly subbed out after failing to box out on a crucial free-throw attempt.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 0.9m -0.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Jericho Sims 38.5m
11
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+3.1

Elite activity on the glass and exceptional connective passing from the high post defined this highly positive shift. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities by out-muscling opposing bigs on 50/50 balls.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 38.5m -23.5
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 32.8m
23
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.1

A heavy diet of contested mid-range jumpers and forced drives suppressed his overall efficiency. However, relentless ball pressure at the top of the key generated crucial deflections that kept his net impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 32.8m -23.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S AJ Green 30.1m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.4

Bleeding points at the point of attack completely erased the value of his floor spacing. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, resulting in a cascade of defensive breakdowns and wide-open layups.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.1
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 30.1m -21.0
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Taurean Prince 27.6m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Spot-up spacing was excellent, but his inability to stay in front of quicker wings neutralized his offensive contributions. A brutal stretch of late-clock fouls in the fourth quarter cratered his net score.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -15.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 27.6m -17.7
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ousmane Dieng 26.7m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.7

Frequent defensive rotations missed on the weak side dragged his overall impact into the red. While his perimeter stroke looked fluid, a pattern of sloppy entry passes in the second half resulted in back-breaking turnovers.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 26.7m -19.2
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Cormac Ryan 24.5m
16
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Scoring efficiency masked a tendency to over-help on defense, leaving shooters wide open in the corners. Several careless offensive fouls while setting screens negated the value of his hot shooting hand.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 24.5m -18.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.6

Shot selection was disastrous, repeatedly settling for heavily contested perimeter looks early in possessions. The resulting long rebounds ignited transition attacks the other way, compounding a severely negative outing.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.1%
USG% 31.8%
Net Rtg -40.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.1
Raw total -4.3
Avg player in 19.1m -12.3
Impact -16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Pete Nance 18.0m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.3

An absolute void on the offensive end, forcing up ill-advised shots early in the clock that killed momentum. His inability to anchor the paint during a disastrous second-quarter stint allowed a parade of uncontested dunks.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -55.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.2
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 18.0m -14.3
Impact -17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

A purely cardio stint where he failed to register a single offensive attempt or meaningful defensive stop. He was entirely bypassed in the half-court flow, rendering his brief rotation minutes a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -63.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 8.0m -6.3
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Injected immediate energy through aggressive closeouts and timely weak-side cuts during a brief first-half appearance. His discipline in staying down on pump fakes prevented cheap fouls and anchored a solid defensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 6.4m -4.6
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Maximized a garbage-time cameo by aggressively attacking closeouts and securing loose balls. A pair of high-effort defensive rotations in the final minutes highlighted a hyper-efficient burst of impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 4.1m -2.7
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Over-exuberant defensive gambles led to immediate blow-bys and compromised the team's shell. A rushed, out-of-rhythm jumper early in the shot clock encapsulated a chaotic and damaging brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +41.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 4.1m -2.6
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0