GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 40.1m
18
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
-2.6

High playmaking volume masked a tendency to over-dribble, which routinely forced the offense into late-clock, heavily contested midrange jumpers. Sluggish defensive navigation through screens allowed the opposing guards to walk into comfortable pull-ups. The heavy offensive usage yielded counting stats but lacked the efficiency needed to drive winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 40.1m -22.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Javonte Green 32.0m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.5

Severe spacing issues arose from his reluctance to shoot, allowing his defender to pack the paint and disrupt driving angles. Compounding his offensive struggles, a series of illegal screens killed crucial momentum. During a disastrous third-quarter stretch, the offense completely stagnated with him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 32.0m -18.3
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Paul Reed 30.8m
28
pts
13
reb
6
ast
Impact
+34.4

Absolute dominance in the pick-and-roll yielded a hyper-efficient scoring night, as he consistently slipped screens for uncontested dunks. Spectacular rim protection altered countless shots and secured defensive rebounds to ignite the fast break. His elite positioning and flawless finishing around the basket defined a truly game-wrecking performance.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.9%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +31.3
Hustle +6.0
Defense +14.7
Raw total +52.0
Avg player in 30.8m -17.6
Impact +34.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 4
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Erratic finishing around the basket and forced floaters dragged down his offensive value despite high energy levels. Frequent gambles in the passing lanes compromised the team's shell defense, yielding open corner threes. The raw athleticism flashed on defense, but poor offensive decision-making tanked his overall score.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 28.5m -16.3
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 28.4m
23
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

Lethal off-ball gravity warped the opposing defense, creating massive driving lanes every time he sprinted around a pin-down screen. Despite spectacular perimeter shooting, his negative defensive rating stemmed from being relentlessly targeted in isolation mismatch hunting. The sheer volume of his floor-spacing impact ultimately outweighed the defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense -1.0
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 28.4m -16.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 21.9m
17
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Methodical probing in the midrange allowed him to dissect the drop coverage with surgical precision. Functioning as a stabilizing playmaker during a chaotic second-quarter run, he took excellent care of the basketball. Smart gambles on defense generated a couple of key deflections that kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 21.9m -12.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
Chaz Lanier 18.3m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Poor shot selection derailed his minutes, as he repeatedly jacked up early-clock, contested jumpers instead of moving the ball. Offering virtually no resistance at the point of attack, opposing guards blew by him on straight-line drives with alarming frequency. Consequently, his lack of offensive rhythm and defensive intensity resulted in a steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 18.3m -10.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tolu Smith 16.2m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Exceptional vertical spacing and hard rolls to the rim collapsed the defense, generating high-quality looks for the perimeter players. Anchoring the second-unit defense, he communicated switches flawlessly and walled off the restricted area. Playing perfectly within his role, he delivered a highly disciplined shift that swung the momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 16.2m -9.3
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

Rushed offensive execution led to a string of clanked perimeter shots that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Struggling mightily with the physicality of the opposing bigs, he was sealed out of the rebounding action repeatedly. An inability to adapt to the game's pace left him out of sync on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 13.8m -7.9
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Tenacious on-ball defense completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, forcing multiple shot-clock violations during his stint. Making quick, decisive reads offensively kept the ball moving rather than letting it stick. This performance highlighted how elite defensive positioning and low-mistake basketball can drive a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 9.9m -5.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 34.0m
21
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite high offensive volume, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to costly live-ball turnovers in traffic. Weak-side defensive rotations proved highly problematic, as he repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts during a pivotal second-half run. The raw production was there, but situational awareness remains a work in progress.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 34.0m -19.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Isaac Okoro 31.7m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless point-of-attack pressure set the tone defensively, generating multiple deflections that fueled Chicago's transition game. His pristine shot selection maximized his offensive touches, punishing late closeouts with decisive drives. A crucial third-quarter stretch of consecutive hustle plays cemented his heavily positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.6%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +7.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 31.7m -18.2
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Tre Jones 30.3m
11
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.0

Over-passing in the pick-and-roll led to stalled possessions and late-clock grenades for his teammates. While his on-ball defensive pressure was disruptive, his reluctance to take open floaters allowed the defense to aggressively trap the wings. A string of miscommunications in transition defense slightly dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.3m -17.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kevin Huerter 27.2m
20
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Elite off-ball movement allowed him to bypass a cold shooting night from deep by scoring repeatedly on backdoor cuts and midrange pull-ups. Consistently exploiting defensive over-rotations, he found soft spots in the zone during the second quarter. A few untimely defensive fouls kept his overall impact from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 27.2m -15.5
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

Brick-heavy perimeter shooting cratered his offensive value, as opposing bigs completely ignored him on the perimeter to clog the paint. Defensively, holding his ground in the post against drop-coverage attacks salvaged some utility. However, his inability to stretch the floor ultimately stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 25.5m -14.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Settling for contested long-range jumpers rather than attacking closeouts severely limited his offensive efficiency. Ball-watching on the glass became a recurring issue, surrendering back-breaking offensive rebounds in clutch moments. The lack of decisive downhill aggression made him a liability during half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 23.5m -13.5
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Ayo Dosunmu 21.9m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Forced isolation drives into crowded paint areas resulted in a slew of blocked shots and empty possessions. Getting caught on screens neutralized his defensive impact, forcing teammates into disadvantageous switches. An inability to finish through contact at the rim defined a highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 29.8%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 21.9m -12.6
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
Jevon Carter 17.5m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.8

Perfect perimeter execution and timely corner spacing punished the defense every time they collapsed on the roll man. Suffocating full-court pressure completely neutralized the opposing backup guard, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs. This outing served as a masterclass in maximizing limited touches through elite shot quality and defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 17.5m -10.0
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 13.9m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Stretching the floor effectively as a trail big opened up crucial driving lanes for the guards. Poor screen-setting and a tendency to get pushed around on the defensive glass muted his overall impact. Ultimately, his floor-spacing value was negated by poor rim protection.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 13.9m -8.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dalen Terry 10.4m
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.0

Complete offensive invisibility allowed his defender to roam freely and double-team the primary ball-handlers. Committing a pair of careless reach-in fouls early in the shot clock put the opponent in the bonus prematurely. His minutes were characterized by a lack of spacing and zero downhill threat.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.4%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 10.4m -6.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

His brief stint was marred by blown defensive assignments in transition that led to easy layups. Failing to make any tangible impact on either end, he looked hesitant when the ball swung his way. The game moved a bit too fast for him during his short rotation window, cementing a negative score.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 4.1m -2.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0