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

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 28.8m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.0

A disastrous offensive performance defined by forced shots into heavy traffic and poor decision-making against blitzes. The sheer volume of wasted possessions and clanked jumpers completely derailed the team's offensive rhythm. Generated some positive hustle stats, but the primary initiation was far too inefficient to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 36.1%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -12.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Duncan Robinson 26.0m
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Opponents relentlessly targeted him in defensive switches, forcing him into unfavorable mismatches on the perimeter. While his floor-spacing gravity opened up occasional driving lanes, his inability to contain dribble penetration gave those points right back. The defensive bleed ultimately outweighed the structural benefits of his offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 20.6m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Provided strong rim deterrence and active hands in the paint, but his offensive execution was severely lacking. Missed reads out of the short roll and fumbled entry passes derailed multiple half-court possessions. The defensive metrics were solid, yet they couldn't overcome the sheer clunkiness of his offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +8.9
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Tobias Harris 17.8m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Bogged down the offensive flow with contested mid-range pull-ups and stalled isolation attempts that bailed out the defense. Despite the poor shot selection, he managed to salvage some value through active closeouts and solid defensive rebounding. The overall negative score reflects the high opportunity cost of his empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -41.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ausar Thompson 15.1m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Uncharacteristically poor defensive rotations led to blown assignments and wide-open corner looks for the opponent. His offensive impact was severely muted by a lack of spacing and an inability to finish through contact in the half-court. Struggled to navigate off-ball screens, constantly trailing his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -44.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -5.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Showed flashes of transition brilliance, but his half-court decision-making was erratic and forced. Over-penetration led to wild kick-outs and disrupted the team's spacing in key offensive moments. Defensive lapses off the ball allowed back-door cuts that negated his otherwise positive hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Anchored the defense with tremendous physicality and excellent switchability onto smaller guards on the perimeter. However, his offensive impact cratered due to a string of forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that acted as live-ball turnovers. The massive disparity between his elite defensive anchoring and offensive bricklaying defined his night.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +9.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided a stabilizing presence off the bench with crisp passing and excellent point-of-attack defense against opposing ball-handlers. His ability to navigate screens and stay attached to shooters fueled a highly impressive +6.1 defensive rating. Played perfectly within himself offensively, taking what the defense gave him without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Brought his trademark chaotic energy with several key deflections and loose ball recoveries that sparked the transition game. Unfortunately, his offensive limitations were glaring, as defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint. The lack of spacing severely handicapped the second unit's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -49.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Chaz Lanier 12.0m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Managed to knock down a couple of perimeter looks, but offered virtually zero resistance on the defensive end of the floor. Opposing guards easily blew past his initial containment, forcing the entire defense into scramble mode. His one-dimensional profile made it difficult to keep him on the floor during crucial two-way stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 8.4m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Maximized his short stint by providing immediate rim protection and energetic weak-side rotations that disrupted the opponent's rhythm. His activity level cut off interior passing angles and forced several late-clock resets. Kept things simple offensively, functioning strictly as a reliable finisher and screener.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Completely changed the complexion of the game during his short run with exceptional defensive instincts and length. His anticipation blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions, resulting in a stellar +5.8 defensive metric in limited time. Played perfectly within his role, letting the game come to him offensively while locking down his assignment.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Blended into the background during his brief appearance, failing to make a significant impact on either end of the court. Showed decent positional awareness on defense but lacked the physical aggression to generate turnovers or deflections. A purely rotational stint that neither helped nor hurt the overall scheme.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 6.1m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.9

Unleashed absolute havoc in the paint during a dominant six-minute burst that completely flipped the momentum. He overpowered smaller defenders for deep post position and provided a massive spark as a physical roll man. The sheer force he played with completely overwhelmed the opponent's second-unit frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 44.4%
Net Rtg +85.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Scoring +9.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Evan Mobley 30.4m
15
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.0

Anchored the interior with elite rim protection and disruptive help defense. A massive +11.5 defensive rating highlights his ability to blow up pick-and-rolls and deter drives. Active hands in the passing lanes generated crucial transition opportunities that fueled the overall positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +43.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +12.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
35
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.4

An absolute offensive masterclass driven by elite shot creation and relentless downhill pressure. His ability to consistently beat primary defenders off the dribble collapsed the defense and generated high-value looks at the rim. Maintained this staggering offensive efficiency without sacrificing his transition defensive duties.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 34.2%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +31.3
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jarrett Allen 25.2m
20
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.0

Dominated the painted area by establishing deep post position and sealing off defenders early in the shot clock. Strong screen-setting and relentless rim-running created immense offensive gravity that heavily boosted his overall metric. He completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt by executing flawless drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S De'Andre Hunter 24.4m
13
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.3

Impact was buoyed by disciplined closeouts and timely weak-side rotations that contained dribble penetration. Even when perimeter jumpers weren't falling, his ability to contest shots on the wing provided a steadying defensive presence. Kept the offensive flow moving without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Merrill 18.0m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Provided instant offensive gravity with relentless off-ball movement and a quick trigger from deep. The constant threat of his jumper warped the defense and opened up driving lanes for primary creators. Sneaky weak-side defensive rotations added unexpected value to his floor time.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 27.6m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.9

Offensive rhythm completely flatlined due to forced drives and heavily contested shot selection in traffic. The inability to convert on isolation attempts bogged down the half-court offense and bled transition opportunities for the opponent. Struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, compounding his negative overall score.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.2%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

Impact was entirely driven by suffocating point-of-attack defense and relentless ball pressure. He consistently fought over screens and disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation, leading to a massive +10.7 defensive score. Orchestrated the second unit with poised, mistake-free decision making.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Dean Wade 19.8m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Played the role of a low-maintenance connector who added value through strict positional discipline. Strong closeouts and timely weak-side help fueled a solid defensive rating without requiring high usage. Avoided negative plays entirely, allowing the primary creators to operate in clean space.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.5

Found himself out of position in pick-and-roll coverage, leading to easy dump-off passes and compromised rim protection. While he provided a few timely deflections, his overall defensive anchoring was sub-par. The lack of offensive assertiveness allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

A stagnant offensive stint characterized by hijacked possessions and contested perimeter looks late in the shot clock. Failed to generate any hustle metrics, making him a distinct net-negative when the outside shots weren't falling. Showed minor flashes of competent on-ball defense, but it wasn't enough to salvage the shift.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -45.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

Completely invisible during his brief stint on the floor, failing to register any defensive resistance or hustle contributions. His passive positioning allowed opponents to dictate the tempo and easily bypass his coverage. A glaring lack of aggression on loose balls further tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring -2.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Surrendered too much deep paint positioning, which resulted in a negative defensive impact score and easy interior looks for the opponent. While he converted a couple of easy dump-offs around the rim, his slow lateral movement in drop coverage was routinely exploited. Failed to make any physical imprint on the glass during his short run.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0