GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 37.3m
21
pts
6
reb
18
ast
Impact
+10.1

Masterful orchestration of the offense yielded a massive assist total that heavily inflated his box score impact. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages with surgical precision, consistently finding the roll man or weak-side shooters before the defense could rotate. A surprisingly robust defensive rating showed he was fully engaged on both sides of the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.2
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 37.3m -20.2
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 35.5m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.0

A drastic regression in shot selection completely tanked his overall impact, as he settled for contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock. This stalled the offensive flow and consistently fed opponent fast breaks, compounding the damage. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant he offered zero value when his jumper wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 35.5m -19.1
Impact -15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 34.4m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defense, creating high-value gravity that drove his positive impact. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to hit timely perimeter shots while surprisingly holding his own at the point of attack. The combination of elite spacing and disciplined closeouts made him a massive plus.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 34.4m -18.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 29.1m
33
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+30.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area resulted in a stratospheric net impact score. He bullied his way to high-percentage looks, finishing through contact and anchoring the interior defense with impeccable timing. His sustained efficiency peaked here with a masterclass in post positioning and offensive rebounding.

Shooting
FG 13/16 (81.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +37.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +46.3
Avg player in 29.1m -15.7
Impact +30.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 28.0m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite defensive disruption and relentless off-ball movement fueled a highly productive outing. He completely locked down the perimeter, generating a massive defensive score while capitalizing on back-door cuts for easy finishes. His ability to turn deflections into instant transition offense was the defining feature of his night.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +9.1
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 28.0m -15.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Physical screen-setting and stout post defense provided a steady, positive foundation for his minutes. He embraced his role as an enforcer, deterring drives and finishing the easy dump-offs created by the primary ball-handlers. His disciplined verticality at the rim was a key factor in generating his strong defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 25.0m -13.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Caris LeVert 18.2m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Stagnant isolation possessions and poor defensive awareness dragged his net rating down significantly. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, bleeding easy points at the rim and frustrating the defensive scheme. While he showed flashes of hustle, his inability to generate efficient offense or stay in front of his assignment was costly.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 18.2m -9.9
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Offensive limitations severely hampered his overall value, as he struggled to finish through traffic in the paint. He managed to salvage his stint slightly through aggressive on-ball defense and high-energy closeouts on the perimeter. However, his inability to convert open looks ultimately made him an offensive liability that the defense could ignore.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 18.2m -9.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

High-octane energy and disruptive perimeter defense drove a stellar positive impact in limited action. He thrived in the chaos, blowing up dribble hand-offs and converting the resulting turnovers into transition points. His knack for making the timely hustle play completely shifted the momentum during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 13.9m -7.4
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Only saw the floor for a brief garbage-time cameo. He did not have enough time to accumulate any meaningful impact stats or influence the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.4m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S P.J. Washington 35.8m
6
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-14.9

A brutal perimeter shooting slump completely derailed his overall value, as his inability to punish closeouts severely cramped the floor. While he tried to compensate with strong defensive rotations, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions dragged his rating into the abyss. His total failure to connect from deep allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 23.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 35.8m -19.3
Impact -14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Cooper Flagg 33.5m
16
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.3

A steep drop in scoring efficiency dragged his net impact into the red after a dominant five-game stretch. He forced several contested looks in the half-court against set defenses, resulting in a high volume of wasted possessions. Despite the poor shot selection, his defensive instincts kept the overall damage from becoming catastrophic.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 33.5m -18.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Max Christie 33.1m
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

His overall impact cratered due to poor positional defense and an inability to secure loose balls, completely negating a solid offensive outing. He was frequently targeted in isolation matchups by bigger wings, bleeding points on the other end of the floor. The lack of defensive resistance made his efficient shooting entirely moot.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 33.1m -17.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Klay Thompson 19.9m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

His negative net impact was driven by a complete lack of secondary contributions, highlighted by his failure to generate any measurable hustle plays. The perimeter spacing he provided was entirely offset by sluggish defensive rotations in transition. He essentially became a spectator whenever the offensive set didn't result in a catch-and-shoot opportunity.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -48.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 19.9m -10.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 17.4m
7
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

Incredible efficiency around the basket allowed him to post a strong positive impact in limited action. He maximized his floor time through relentless rim-running and physical offensive rebounding, generating a stellar hustle score. His disciplined vertical spacing remains a highly reliable weapon against drop coverages.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 17.4m -9.4
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
31
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.7

A barrage of perimeter shot-making drove a massively positive impact, as he dictated the tempo perfectly in the half-court. He ruthlessly punished drop coverage with deep pull-up jumpers, stretching the defense to its breaking point. His engaged point-of-attack defense was a welcome surprise that helped solidify the elite overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.7%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 29.9m -16.0
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A significant drop in offensive usage limited his influence, pulling his net rating into the negative despite solid defensive metrics. He remained highly active in passing lanes, but the lack of scoring punch left the second unit stagnant during his minutes. The inability to create his own shot against switching defenses severely capped his value.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 22.9m -12.4
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Defensive breakdowns in the pick-and-roll heavily penalized his overall score, completely erasing his flawless shooting execution. Opponents consistently exploited his lack of rim protection, resulting in a highly negative defensive rating. He provided solid energy on the glass, but his inability to anchor the paint was the defining flaw of his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.8%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense -2.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 18.5m -10.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

Empty-calorie scoring defined his stint, as his offensive production came without any playmaking or rebounding to support the lineup. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the entire rotation. The complete lack of peripheral stats severely limited his overall effectiveness on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 16.6m -9.0
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Caleb Martin 12.3m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

A completely invisible performance on both ends of the floor resulted in a steep negative impact. He failed to generate any defensive pressure or transition opportunities, floating through his minutes without leaving a physical mark on the game. The lack of aggression allowed his matchup to dictate the flow of the offense unchallenged.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 12.3m -6.6
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0