GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 40.0m
39
pts
13
reb
11
ast
Impact
+9.7

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and elite shot-making at all three levels generated a massive positive impact. He consistently diagnosed defensive coverages, punishing drop schemes with pull-up jumpers while keeping his teammates heavily involved.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 9/12 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.4
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 40.0m -21.0
Impact +9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 8
S Duncan Robinson 35.2m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.1

A brutal shooting slump from the perimeter torpedoed his overall value, stalling out multiple offensive possessions. He worked hard defensively and chased loose balls to mitigate the damage, but his primary utility as a floor spacer completely vanished.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.0
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 35.2m -18.4
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 31.2m
16
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Dominant rim protection and disciplined drop coverage fueled a highly positive performance. Even with a sharp decline in his recent offensive volume, his ability to alter shots and secure the defensive glass dictated the terms of the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +34.1
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +12.5
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 31.2m -16.3
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 29.9m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Efficient mid-range execution and decisive scoring actions drove a positive offensive rating, though defensive lapses nearly erased the gains. He successfully capitalized on favorable mismatches, but slow closeouts on the perimeter kept his overall impact marginal.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.5
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 29.9m -15.8
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 22.6m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Spacing issues and offensive stagnation during his shifts ultimately dragged his net rating into the negative. While his rebounding and defensive activity were adequate, his lack of perimeter threat allowed the defense to pack the paint and stall Detroit's half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 22.6m -12.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caris LeVert 23.5m
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Inefficient isolation attempts and a lack of playmaking rhythm bogged down the second unit's offense. While he provided decent energy on the defensive end, his inability to beat primary defenders off the dribble resulted in empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.5m -12.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Defensive miscommunications and an inability to anchor the interior led to a negative overall showing. His offensive touches were highly efficient, but opponents repeatedly exploited his positioning in the pick-and-roll to generate easy looks.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -52.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 14.3m -7.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Missed opportunities on spot-up looks and a lack of offensive gravity dragged down his overall rating. He brought his usual defensive physicality, but failing to convert on open perimeter chances allowed the opposition to aggressively trap the ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 10.4m -5.5
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 10.2m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

A complete inability to find the flow of the game resulted in a severely negative stint off the bench. He was a non-factor in offensive sets and struggled with defensive rotations, forcing the coaching staff to pull him early.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -70.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.1
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 10.2m -5.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him virtually unplayable during his brief rotation. By failing to even attempt a shot or pressure the rim, he allowed the defense to play five-on-four and completely disrupt Detroit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -84.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 8.8m -4.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

A shocking disappearance from the offensive game plan completely tanked his impact after a string of high-scoring performances. He failed to assert himself against physical perimeter defense, settling for contested looks and failing to generate any downhill momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 8.3m -4.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 5.6m
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Incredible per-minute defensive activity and relentless hustle transformed an offensively quiet cameo into a massive net positive. He completely changed the energy of the game with hard closeouts and physical box-outs, proving his value does not rely on scoring touches.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 5.6m -2.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 39.3m
37
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.0

An absolute masterclass in mid-range and downhill scoring fueled a dominant overall rating. Completely abandoning the three-point line after early misses, he relentlessly attacked defensive gaps to generate high-quality looks and anchor the offensive attack.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +27.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.6
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 39.3m -20.6
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Franz Wagner 36.0m
21
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Relentless rim pressure and high-motor play drove a massive positive impact despite a cold night from beyond the arc. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer hustle, overpowering his matchups inside to compensate for the perimeter struggles.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +7.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 36.0m -18.9
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 33.9m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle completely salvaged a disastrous shooting night. He bricked his way out of the primary offensive flow but remained a massive net positive by blowing up opponent actions and securing loose balls.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 2/11 (18.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +8.3
Defense +11.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 33.9m -17.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Strong interior defense and active rebounding kept him afloat, but a severe drop in finishing efficiency dragged his overall impact into the red. After a hot streak of efficient scoring, his inability to convert inside the paint forced the offense to look elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 32.2m -17.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A sharp drop in offensive aggression limited his overall effectiveness, as he failed to match his recent scoring output. While his defensive rotations remained solid, the lack of perimeter spacing stunted Orlando's offensive flow during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 20.7m -10.9
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Defensive tenacity and high-energy rotations masked a highly inefficient shooting performance. He struggled to find a rhythm offensively, but his ability to disrupt passing lanes and generate deflections kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +34.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +9.8
Defense +8.8
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 31.5m -16.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
Tyus Jones 18.4m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Complete offensive passivity cratered his overall value, as he failed to pressure the defense or initiate meaningful actions. The lack of scoring gravity allowed opponents to sag off and clog the passing lanes, rendering his playmaking attempts ineffective.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.9%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 18.4m -9.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 14.3m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Perfect shot selection and mistake-free execution in a brief stint provided a highly efficient boost to the second unit. He anchored his minutes by taking only what the defense gave him, resulting in a remarkably high box score impact for a low-usage role.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 14.3m -7.5
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Provided a steadying defensive presence during his brief rotation, deterring drives and executing cleanly on the other end. His highly disciplined shot selection ensured he maximized his limited touches without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +70.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 13.6m -7.1
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0