GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 40.3m
16
pts
3
reb
14
ast
Impact
+4.2

A disastrous shooting night was completely salvaged by elite floor generalship and high-level defensive engagement. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages masterfully to spoon-feed teammates, offsetting the damage of 13 missed field goals. His +6.7 defensive rating proved he remained locked in on the other end despite his jumper abandoning him.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 40.3m -18.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 34.9m
25
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Sustained offensive aggression allowed him to shatter his recent scoring averages, consistently finding soft spots in the midrange defense. He capitalized on favorable cross-matches in semi-transition, driving a robust +16.0 box creation score. While his defensive metrics were merely average, his reliable shot-making stabilized the half-court offense during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 34.9m -16.1
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 31.5m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Heavy reliance on the deep ball yielded mixed overall efficiency, though his constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive shell. The sheer volume of perimeter attempts punished late closeouts, driving a solid +10.4 box score impact. He supplemented the spacing with surprisingly active defensive rotations, keeping his net rating just above water.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 31.5m -14.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 30.8m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless rim-running and elite finishing in the restricted area anchored a highly productive offensive showing. He consistently outmuscled his primary matchup on the interior, generating a strong +14.8 box score metric while maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient outings. Solid rim protection and active rebounding further cemented his status as the physical tone-setter for the unit.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -2.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 30.8m -14.3
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 27.6m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

Absolute dominance on the defensive end fueled a massive positive rating, as he completely suffocated opposing wings at the point of attack. His elite athleticism translated into a superb +4.3 hustle score, highlighted by multiple deflections that ignited the transition break. This performance was a masterclass in impacting winning without needing high offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +11.2
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 27.6m -12.8
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Physical interior defense kept his floor relatively high, but a lack of offensive punch dragged his final rating slightly into the red. He struggled to finish through contact around the basket, missing a few crucial bunnies that stalled momentum. His ability to anchor the drop coverage was commendable, yet it couldn't fully compensate for the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 21.2m -9.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 17.2m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

A lack of overall aggression limited his footprint on the game, as he deferred too often within the half-court sets. While his defensive metrics showed solid engagement against opposing guards, the low offensive volume prevented him from establishing any real rhythm. He struggled to find driving lanes against a packed paint, ultimately resulting in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 17.2m -7.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Caris LeVert 17.0m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

An incredibly disruptive performance on the margins was headlined by a massive +7.9 hustle rating, driven by diving for loose balls and aggressive closeouts. Unfortunately, his offensive execution was dreadful, with forced isolation jumpers cratering his box score metrics. The relentless energy plays kept him viable, but the poor shot selection ultimately sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +7.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 17.0m -7.9
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Erratic finishing at the rim hampered his offensive efficiency, continuing a recent trend of struggling to convert in traffic. He provided a passable effort on the defensive end, staying in front of his man to generate a +1.9 rating. However, the inability to capitalize on slashing opportunities left his overall impact in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 12.3m -5.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Operating strictly as a low-usage spacer during his brief stint, he managed to stay out of the way and provide competent weak-side defense. He capitalized on his lone open perimeter look, which was just enough to nudge his net rating into the green. A quiet but mistake-free shift defined his limited time on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.3m -3.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jaylen Brown 38.9m
32
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Massive shot volume kept the offense afloat, but clanking 17 attempts heavily capped his overall efficiency. His relentless energy on the glass and loose balls generated a stellar +5.2 hustle rating to salvage a positive net impact. The sheer burden of primary creation forced him into several heavily contested midrange pull-ups against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.4%
USG% 41.6%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 38.9m -18.1
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Derrick White 37.7m
4
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.6

An abysmal perimeter shooting night cratered his overall value, with 10 missed field goals stalling out multiple half-court possessions. Despite the offensive zeroes, he remained highly engaged at the point of attack to post a strong +4.6 defensive rating. His inability to punish drop coverage from deep ultimately allowed the defense to pack the paint and ignore him off the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 16.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 37.7m -17.6
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Quality shot selection and efficient perimeter execution couldn't overcome glaring defensive liabilities at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in isolation, resulting in a negative defensive rating that erased his offensive contributions. A complete lack of measurable hustle plays further highlighted his struggles to impact the game without the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 33.6m -15.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 28.3m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Defensive anchoring completely defined this outing, yielding an exceptional +9.1 rating on that end of the floor. He deterred drives at the rim and consistently won the physical battles in the paint, masking a near-total lack of offensive usage. His ability to control the restricted area against opposing slashers set the tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 28.3m -13.3
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Sam Hauser 27.4m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite floor-spacing efficiency drove a highly positive offensive rating, punishing defensive rotations with quick-trigger perimeter strikes. He supplemented the outside gravity with active off-ball movement and timely closeouts, pushing his hustle metrics well above average. This performance highlighted his seamless fit as a low-maintenance release valve against trapping schemes.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 27.4m -12.7
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Errant perimeter execution derailed his offensive rhythm, as clanking five deep attempts stalled out crucial transition opportunities. He surprisingly salvaged some value on the other end with a +3.8 defensive rating driven by disciplined closeouts. The inability to break down his primary defender off the dribble severely limited his playmaking upside.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 24.7m -11.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jordan Walsh 16.1m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

Floating through his minutes with minimal engagement, his lack of assertiveness resulted in a severely depressed net rating. He failed to leave a mark on either end of the floor, missing defensive assignments that led to easy weak-side cuts. This passive approach relegated him to being a non-factor against a physical opposing frontline.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 16.1m -7.5
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 15.2m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Snapping a long streak of hyper-efficient outings, he settled for too many contested looks from beyond the arc. However, active positioning in the paint and solid rotational awareness yielded positive hustle and defensive marks. His willingness to battle for deep post position forced the defense into early rotations, keeping his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 15.2m -7.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite posting slightly positive peripheral metrics across the board, his overall impact slipped into the red due to offensive passivity. He passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the ball movement and allowing the defense to reset. A solid effort navigating screens defensively wasn't quite enough to offset the lack of offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 14.7m -7.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief cameo at the end of the rotation offered almost zero statistical footprint outside of a slight defensive negative. He struggled to get up to game speed during his short stint, getting caught out of position on a baseline rotation. There simply wasn't enough floor time to establish any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.8m -0.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Relegated to pure garbage-time duty, his impact was limited to a single empty offensive possession. He forced a contested look in the paint rather than moving the ball, slightly dinging his box score metric. The minuscule sample size prevented any meaningful defensive or hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.6m -0.7
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0