GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.9m
31
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+1.4

Shouldered a massive offensive burden, but the sheer volume of missed shots heavily diluted the value of his primary playmaking. While his shot creation generated a stellar +19.4 box score metric, his marginal contributions in hustle and defense (+0.7) meant he gave back almost everything he created. He operated as a pure volume engine whose inefficiency capped his true ceiling.

Shooting
FG 13/28 (46.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 36.9m -19.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 34.6m
22
pts
22
reb
3
ast
Impact
+22.5

Utterly terrorized the interior, combining highly efficient finishing with overwhelming physical dominance to post a monstrous +22.5 net impact. Continuing his streak of elite shooting efficiency, he punished late rotations while simultaneously building a wall on defense (+9.1 Def). His ability to secure contested rebounds repeatedly denied second-chance opportunities for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +40.5
Avg player in 34.6m -18.0
Impact +22.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Isaiah Stewart 31.4m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Anchored the frontline with phenomenal defensive positioning, generating a stellar +10.5 rating on that end of the floor by altering shots and blowing up pick-and-rolls. He chipped in valuable floor spacing by taking what the defense gave him from deep, even if the efficiency was modest. His physical screen-setting and paint enforcement dictated the half-court tempo.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +10.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 31.4m -16.4
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 31.0m
18
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.6

Exploded offensively to more than double his recent scoring output, attacking the rim with relentless energy and highly efficient finishing. His elite +6.2 hustle rating reflects a barrage of deflections and extra-effort plays that constantly disrupted the opponent's rhythm. This two-way dominance cemented him as the primary catalyst for transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 31.0m -16.1
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 28.4m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

A significant dip in offensive volume limited his typical gravity, as he struggled to find daylight against tight perimeter coverage. Despite a surprisingly robust +5.2 hustle rating fueled by loose ball recoveries, his inability to stretch the floor at his usual clip crippled the team's spacing. This lack of scoring punch ultimately dragged his net rating severely into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 28.4m -14.8
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.3

Capitalized on his opportunities with highly efficient shot selection, providing a noticeable scoring bump over his recent baseline. The real story was his relentless two-way motor, as he racked up deflections (+4.8 Hustle) and suffocated ball-handlers (+6.2 Def) to swing momentum. He thrived as an opportunistic cutter who punished sleeping defenders.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 27.9m -14.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Fired a complete blank from the field, missing all of his perimeter looks to severely handicap the offense during his minutes. While he manufactured some value through sheer energy and loose ball recoveries (+3.0 Hustle), the total lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to completely ignore him. His inability to punish closeouts ruined several half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 22.9m -12.0
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 19.5m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Bogged down the second unit's flow with forced isolation attempts, clanking the majority of his looks to sink his offensive rating. He did provide some resistance at the point of attack (+2.9 Def), but it wasn't enough to compensate for the empty possessions he generated. The ball consistently stuck in his hands during crucial transition windows.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 19.5m -10.1
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Paul Reed 7.3m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Saw his minutes drastically reduced, halting a highly efficient five-game scoring tear in its tracks. He still managed to pack a punch on the margins with aggressive rebounding (+3.6 Hustle) during his brief stint. Ultimately, the lack of floor time prevented him from establishing any real interior rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 7.3m -3.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
S Lauri Markkanen 39.9m
25
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Massive shot volume masked severe inefficiency, as clanking nine attempts from beyond the arc heavily penalized his offensive rating. While his defensive rebounding and perimeter contests (+5.5 Def) provided steady value, the sheer number of empty possessions dragged his overall impact into the red. His role as the primary initiator resulted in forced looks against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 39.9m -20.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Svi Mykhailiuk 36.0m
28
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Caught fire from the perimeter to double his recent scoring average, punishing late closeouts with elite shot selection. His massive +21.2 box score impact was driven by highly efficient spacing rather than ball dominance. Active hands on the perimeter (+4.3 Def) ensured he wasn't giving back the value he created on offense.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 36.0m -18.9
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Keyonte George 34.9m
19
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.7

Struggled heavily with shot selection, forcing up contested looks to the tune of a dozen missed field goals. This offensive inefficiency severely punished his net rating (-6.7) despite him flashing decent playmaking vision in the half-court. The lack of secondary hustle plays meant he had no margin for error on a cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 34.9m -18.2
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jusuf Nurkić 32.6m
6
pts
17
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.7

Anchored the interior with absolute authority, generating a massive +17.6 defensive impact score through elite rim protection and physical box-outs. The poor finishing around the basket was entirely offset by his relentless motor (+5.8 Hustle) and ability to end opponent possessions single-handedly. He completely dictated the physical terms of the matchup in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +17.6
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 32.6m -16.9
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan, failing to register a single point after averaging six over his last five outings. Despite the scoring drought and empty shooting trips, his active rotations and strong defensive positioning (+4.8) prevented a total collapse in value. He essentially operated as a pure defensive specialist who was ignored on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 17.6m -9.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 7.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

An abrupt end to a blistering five-game hot streak, as he looked entirely out of sync while forcing contested interior looks. Missing four of his five attempts tanked his offensive value, completely erasing the modest positive contributions he made as a weak-side helper (+2.8 Def). Opponents successfully pushed him off his preferred spots on the block all night.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 20.1m -10.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Ace Bailey 19.2m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

A sharp drop in offensive aggression saw his usual scoring punch cut nearly in half compared to recent outings. Compounding the quiet offensive night were distinct struggles staying in front of assignments, leading to a negative defensive rating (-2.9). He was repeatedly targeted in isolation sequences during his second-half minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 19.2m -9.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.0

Bled value on the defensive end (-1.7), frequently getting caught out of position on perimeter rotations. While he distributed the ball decently, a passive approach to scoring caused his offensive threat level to dip well below his recent averages. The opponent's second unit consistently exploited his side of the floor to generate open looks.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.7
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 15.2m -7.9
Impact -9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Kevin Love 13.9m
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Fired blanks from the perimeter, missing all of his attempts from deep to severely limit his floor-spacing value. However, veteran savvy showed up in the margins, as strong box-outs and loose ball recoveries (+3.8 Hustle) mitigated the shooting woes. His heavy feet on the perimeter defensively (-0.6) ultimately kept his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 13.9m -7.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Barely factored into the offensive flow during his brief stint, seeing his usual production plummet as he attempted just a single shot. The lack of tangible defensive disruption or hustle plays left his overall impact slightly in the red. He essentially functioned as a placeholder on the floor without altering the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 10.5m -5.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged just a handful of seconds at the end of a quarter, rendering any statistical impact entirely moot. The lack of playing time was a stark contrast to his recent high-scoring tear.

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 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0