GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Javonte Green 36.7m
21
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.5

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and aggressive drives that drew contact fueled a massive spike in his overall impact. Even with streaky perimeter execution, his ability to generate extra possessions through sheer hustle completely tilted the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 36.7m -20.2
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Daniss Jenkins 35.1m
19
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.0

Lethal execution from beyond the arc punished defenders who went under screens, driving a strong positive rating. However, his struggles to convert in traffic inside the paint prevented his overall impact from climbing even higher.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 35.1m -19.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 31.5m
15
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.4

Constant off-ball movement warped the opponent's defensive shell, creating driving lanes for teammates even when he didn't touch the ball. Surprisingly robust closeouts and active hands on defense elevated his rating well beyond just his perimeter gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +7.3
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 31.5m -17.3
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Paul Reed 25.1m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

Operating as a highly disruptive force in the passing lanes drove his elite defensive metrics. He maintained his recent trend of clinical interior finishing, capitalizing on dump-off passes to anchor a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 25.1m -13.9
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Forcing contested looks at the rim severely damaged his offensive value and overall rating. Despite providing excellent point-of-attack defense and generating deflections, his inability to finish through contact negated those stops.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.6
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 24.3m -13.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Bullying his way to efficient looks in the post kept his offensive metrics afloat. Unfortunately, sluggish lateral rotations on defense allowed guards to turn the corner repeatedly, flattening his overall impact to near neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 22.9m -12.6
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 22.9m
14
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.7

Slicing through drop coverage for efficient perimeter looks provided a much-needed offensive spark. The scoring efficiency was pristine, but a lack of secondary defensive efforts kept his net rating from reflecting his true offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 22.9m -12.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Chaz Lanier 18.7m
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Settling exclusively for perimeter jumpers made his offensive profile too predictable, allowing the defense to stay home on shooters. While he saw a slight scoring bump compared to recent outings, his lack of rim pressure resulted in a net negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +43.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 18.7m -10.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Passive offensive positioning allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint. Failing to assert himself or generate meaningful defensive pressure rendered his nearly twenty minutes of court time highly detrimental to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +64.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 18.1m -9.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Blown assignments in pick-and-roll coverage during a brief stint on the floor quickly tanked his defensive rating. Even with perfect shooting on a single attempt, the defensive breakdowns made his short shift a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 4.7m -2.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 39.6m
31
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Heavy shot volume and poor perimeter selection suppressed what could have been a monster statistical night. However, relentless point-of-attack defense and constant downhill pressure in transition kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 13/31 (41.9%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.8
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 39.6m -21.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S VJ Edgecombe 37.5m
18
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Perimeter shot-making inflated his box score, masking severe struggles to finish inside the arc against set defenses. The resulting empty possessions and subsequent transition opportunities for the opponent drove his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 37.5m -20.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 35.7m
12
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Dominant rim protection and highly efficient finishing fueled a massive positive swing in his impact metrics. Stepping outside to knock down a pair of unexpected perimeter shots completely warped the opponent's defensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +9.6
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 35.7m -19.6
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 14.9m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A sharp deviation from his recent efficient scoring trend dragged down his overall rating. While his defensive engagement and hustle metrics remained strong, an inability to convert looks in the half-court ultimately resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 14.9m -8.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trendon Watford 14.3m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Stagnant offensive possessions and missed perimeter looks severely hampered his overall rating despite adequate defensive positioning. He struggled to replicate his usual interior efficiency, leading to empty trips that allowed opponents to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -49.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 14.3m -7.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.2

Clanking a high volume of spot-up looks completely derailed the team's half-court rhythm. Breaking a recent streak of high-efficiency shooting, these forced perimeter attempts fueled opponent run-outs and tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 32.4m -17.9
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Consistent execution in the pick-and-pop game stretched the opposing frontcourt and generated a solid positive rating. His disciplined closeouts and reliable positional defense further stabilized the second unit during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 28.9m -15.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A sudden surge in perimeter shot-making couldn't entirely offset his defensive lapses. Poor closeout angles and a complete lack of secondary hustle plays allowed opponents to exploit his matchups, resulting in a slightly negative net score.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 17.4m -9.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Complete offensive invisibility during his rotation minutes dragged down his overall score. While his defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, the inability to apply any pressure on the other end created a functional disadvantage.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -44.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 10.0m -5.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Adem Bona 9.2m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Short bursts of high-energy rim running and active hands generated a modest but positive net rating. He executed his role perfectly in a limited window, avoiding costly mistakes while providing reliable weak-side help.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -45.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 9.2m -5.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0