GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 35.8m
30
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+21.9

An absolute masterclass in defensive disruption defined his dominant night and carried him to a monstrous total impact score. Despite struggling heavily from beyond the arc, he relentlessly attacked the paint and created for others. His ability to dictate the flow of the game on both ends completely overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +11.9
Raw total +42.5
Avg player in 35.8m -20.6
Impact +21.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 32.7m
21
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Dominating the paint on both ends drove a massive overall rating. Incredible hustle metrics and a continued streak of hyper-efficient finishing defined his night, ensuring every offensive touch was maximized. His refusal to settle for outside shots allowed him to anchor the offense while securing extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total +26.6
Avg player in 32.7m -18.9
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 30.4m
23
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Aggressively hunting mismatches inside the arc defined his performance and fueled a massive positive impact. He dominated the interior, easily surpassing his recent scoring averages with high-percentage looks. The combination of efficient finishing and stingy defensive rotations made this a standout two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 30.4m -17.6
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 29.4m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

Sizzling perimeter spacing defined his offensive role, but unseen mistakes resulted in a perfectly neutral score. He provided excellent gravity by hitting the majority of his deep looks. However, the flat total impact suggests he likely gave those points right back through defensive breakdowns or unrecorded turnovers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 29.4m -17.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 29.2m
12
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.7

Relentless defensive activity defined his night and kept him in the green despite a brutal shooting performance. He missed a staggering amount of shots, significantly dragging down his offensive efficiency compared to his recent hot streak. However, his ability to generate extra possessions and disrupt the opponent's flow outweighed his scoring struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 29.2m -17.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Unseen mistakes like costly turnovers or fouls defined his negative impact despite a significant scoring surge. He found his stroke from the perimeter, breaking out of a recent shooting slump with strong defensive metrics. However, the negative overall score implies those offensive gains were erased by sloppy execution elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 23.0m -13.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Taking only high-value shots defined his steadying presence and kept his head above water. He maximized his limited touches with near-perfect shooting efficiency, including a timely make from deep. While not overly disruptive on defense, his offensive reliability provided a solid foundation.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 17.9m -10.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Lethal spot-up shooting from beyond the arc defined his highly efficient and impactful stint. He capitalized on broken plays and defensive rotations, hitting nearly all of his deep attempts. Combined with solid defensive metrics, he provided the exact type of two-way spark needed from the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 17.5m -10.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 15.6m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Defensive liabilities and poor shot selection resulted in a heavily negative net rating. He completely lost his recent shooting rhythm, forcing bad looks and stalling the half-court offense. The opponent routinely exploiting his presence on the floor defined his highly detrimental minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 31.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 15.6m -8.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A shocking drop-off into complete passivity defined his brief appearance and resulted in a negative performance. He barely factored into the game, missing his only look and failing to generate any momentum. The lack of involvement was a stark contrast to the heavy offensive load he had been carrying recently.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.3m -1.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 2.7m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Failing to establish any interior presence defined his nearly invisible cameo appearance. His streak of hyper-efficient scoring came to an abrupt halt as he missed his lone attempt around the basket. The incredibly short leash prevented him from making any meaningful positive impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.7m -1.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Exceptional defensive activity in a tiny window defined his stint and generated a wildly high positive rating. He was perfectly efficient on his single offensive touch while completely locking down his matchup on the other end. It was a flawless, albeit incredibly brief, execution of his role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 2.7m -1.6
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 34.5m
24
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.3

His role as a defensive anchor defined the night and barely kept his overall impact above water. He struggled to find efficiency from the perimeter, missing all of his deep attempts and relying heavily on volume. The high defensive rating suggests he was highly disruptive on the other end, offsetting the clunky shooting.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 10/17 (58.8%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 34.5m -20.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Franz Wagner 33.4m
22
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Impact was dragged into the negative despite a scoring surge above his recent average. Inefficient finishing inside the arc defined his night and limited his overall offensive value. His defensive metrics remained solid, but the empty possessions from missed shots ultimately outweighed the volume.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 58.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 33.4m -19.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 30.8m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

Forced jumpers and a disastrous shooting rhythm completely cratered his net impact. The sheer volume of missed shots killed offensive momentum and likely fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. Failing to find a rhythm defined his night, snapping a strong five-game stretch of efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 30.8m -17.8
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 20.7m
8
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

Point-of-attack defensive disruption defined his stint and salvaged a quiet offensive outing. He took a massive step back in scoring volume compared to recent games, barely factoring into the half-court attack. However, his high-energy hustle plays ensured he remained a net positive on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 20.7m -12.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Flawless shot selection across his limited minutes anchored a positive overall rating. Though his offensive volume dipped significantly from his recent stretch, maximizing every single touch defined this highly efficient performance. Strong hustle metrics indicate he was highly active in his brief rotation window.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 15.2m -8.8
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Goga Bitadze 26.5m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

A strict diet of high-percentage looks inside the paint defined his breakout performance. He snapped out of a recent slump by completely eliminating bad shots and finishing flawlessly around the basket. This hyper-efficient execution, combined with steady rebounding, resulted in a highly impactful stint.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -19.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 26.5m -15.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Poor perimeter shot selection heavily penalized his overall rating. While his hustle and defensive metrics were quite strong, the wasted offensive possessions from bricked deep looks defined his negative impact. The inability to convert open shots ultimately tanked his value during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 24.0m -13.9
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Highly efficient perimeter shooting fueled a stellar box score impact. He seamlessly slotted into the offense, taking quality shots and converting at a high clip without forcing the issue. Solid defensive positioning further boosted his overall positive contribution, defining a clean two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 20.6m -11.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 11.8m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Frequent defensive lapses defined his minutes and dragged his total impact into the red. He showed great energy and capitalized on his few offensive touches, finishing efficiently at the rim. Unfortunately, he was routinely exploited on the other end of the floor, erasing any positive gains.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.5
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 11.8m -6.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyus Jones 8.9m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

A complete lack of defensive resistance defined his brief stint and led to a negative net rating. While he finally managed to see a shot go through the hoop after a recent drought, he was largely invisible. The opponent clearly won the minutes he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -45.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 8.9m -5.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Playing essentially 4-on-5 on offense defined his minutes and severely hindered the team's efficiency. He was a complete zero offensively, failing to attempt a single shot and actively hurting the spacing. His defensive metrics remained characteristically strong, but the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -69.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 6.2m -3.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Complete passivity defined his garbage time minutes and yielded a highly negative rating. He failed to register any meaningful stats or hustle plays across the board. The stark drop-off from his recent steady play highlights a completely disengaged stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 3.7m -2.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Quick triggers and forced shots in a tiny window of playing time torpedoed his overall impact score. He abandoned the efficient approach that had defined his last five games, instead coming up empty on multiple attempts. The resulting empty possessions quickly compounded into a negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 3.7m -2.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1