GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Duncan Robinson 34.3m
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

High-volume perimeter misses dragged his net impact into the red despite excellent off-ball movement and hustle. The opponent clearly game-planned to run him off his spots, forcing him into rushed, off-balance attempts that fueled long rebounds. While his gravity stretched the defense, the poor conversion rate ultimately hurt the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 34.3m -18.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniss Jenkins 33.5m
26
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.5

Aggressive rim pressure and decisive playmaking fueled a strong positive rating in a breakout offensive showing. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, forcing help rotations that led to easy dump-offs. Active hands in the passing lanes translated defense directly into transition scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 33.5m -18.0
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Incredible defensive disruption was overshadowed by an inability to generate consistent offensive traction. While he hounded ball handlers and racked up major hustle points, his offensive possessions often stalled out against set defenses. The raw athleticism is evident, but the lack of a reliable half-court scoring package limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 30.5m -16.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 28.6m
31
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+22.1

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a staggering positive impact, as he converted nearly every look around the basket. Continuing a torrid streak of interior efficiency, his physical rolls to the rim completely collapsed the opposing defense. Controlling the glass on both ends ensured his team dictated the pace and physicality of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/13 (92.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/11 (63.6%)
Advanced
TS% 86.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +32.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 28.6m -15.3
Impact +22.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Stewart 20.4m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A perfectly neutral overall impact resulted from balancing solid floor spacing with occasional defensive over-rotations. Knocking down pick-and-pop looks drew the opposing rim protector out of the paint, opening up driving lanes. However, struggling to secure contested defensive rebounds negated much of his positive offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 20.4m -11.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
20
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.6

An explosive scoring surge far above his seasonal baseline propelled a massive positive impact. Capitalizing on hard cuts and transition leaks, he found high-percentage looks without demanding the ball in isolation. His relentless energy on loose balls provided crucial momentum swings during tight stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 27.1m -14.6
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Chaz Lanier 18.4m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite a slight uptick in scoring compared to his usual output, his overall influence remained marginally negative due to defensive mismatches. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, forcing the defense to scramble and concede open looks. He showed flashes of active hands, but the lack of physical strength at the point of attack was exploited.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.4m -9.9
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 17.4m
8
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.2

Playmaking duties couldn't salvage a negative impact caused by perimeter shooting struggles and stalled offensive sets. When his outside shot failed to fall, defenders sagged into the paint, severely constricting the team's spacing. Over-dribbling in the half-court frequently led to late-clock, low-quality attempts for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 17.4m -9.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Offensive invisibility severely hampered his team's spacing, allowing defenders to freely roam and double-team the primary options. While he provided solid rotational defense, the complete lack of scoring threat rendered his minutes a net negative. Hesitancy to pull the trigger on open looks bogged down the offensive machinery.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 15.0m -8.0
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 13.5m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.3

Providing a steadying presence for the second unit, he executed his role with extreme efficiency. Smart positional defense and timely screens freed up the guards, even as his own scoring volume dipped. He maintained his streak of high-percentage shooting by strictly adhering to his role around the basket.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 13.5m -7.1
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

A fleeting appearance yielded a single successful conversion in garbage time. He managed to find a soft spot in the defense for a quick bucket but lacked the minutes to establish any real rhythm. The marginal positive score reflects a harmless, low-leverage stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 66.7%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 33.8m
29
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

A heavy offensive burden yielded a strong positive impact, driven by his ability to generate high-quality looks from the perimeter. His defensive versatility and active rotations perfectly complemented his scoring punch. Forcing the defense into constant rotation off his drives opened up the floor during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 29.9%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 33.8m -18.2
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 65.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Andrew Nembhard 31.5m
15
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.1

Poor shooting efficiency and a failure to dictate the offensive tempo resulted in a heavily negative net rating. Struggling to navigate ball screens, he frequently settled for low-percentage floaters that killed offensive momentum. The lack of rim pressure allowed the defensive scheme to stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 31.5m -17.0
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Jarace Walker 28.4m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Despite strong defensive positioning and solid hustle metrics, his overall impact cratered due to a severe lack of offensive aggression. Breaking a four-game streak of highly efficient shooting, he faded into the background and failed to punish mismatches. His reluctance to attack the rim left the half-court sets stagnant during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 28.4m -15.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaiah Jackson 26.6m
16
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.5

Elite interior finishing fueled a massive positive impact score, as he exploited the defense for easy lob conversions and putbacks. Continuing a five-game streak of hyper-efficient shooting, his vertical spacing completely warped the opponent's rim protection. Constant activity on the glass and timely defensive rotations cemented a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 26.6m -14.2
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
25
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

High-volume scoring masked a deeply negative overall impact driven by inefficient shot selection and defensive lapses. Settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint allowed the opponent to easily transition off long misses. His inability to stay in front of straight-line drives consistently compromised the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 8/14 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 25.2m -13.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Ben Sheppard 28.7m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.8

A frigid night from beyond the arc torpedoed his overall impact despite stellar defensive metrics. Failing to punish defensive closeouts, his missed perimeter shots repeatedly sparked opponent transition opportunities. His elite point-of-attack defense kept him on the floor, but the offensive spacing suffered drastically.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 28.7m -15.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Clunky offensive execution dragged down an otherwise solid defensive and rebounding effort. Missing multiple clean looks around the basket stifled the second unit's momentum during critical rotation windows. His positional discipline on defense couldn't fully offset the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 20.4m -10.9
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tony Bradley 17.5m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Sputtering touch in the paint completely derailed his offensive value, turning potential scoring opportunities into empty trips. While he provided a physical presence and generated positive hustle plays, the inability to finish through contact was glaring. Opponents sagged off him entirely, clogging the driving lanes for the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 17.5m -9.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

An uncharacteristic goose egg in the scoring column broke a streak of highly efficient shooting and hampered the bench offense. He tried to compensate with relentless ball pressure and elite hustle, generating extra possessions through sheer effort. Ultimately, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to cheat into passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +7.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 15.4m -8.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jay Huff 8.1m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Operating effectively in limited minutes, he provided a slight positive bump through disciplined rim runs and floor spacing. Though his scoring volume took a sharp dip from his recent averages, he avoided costly mistakes and executed the offensive sets cleanly. His quick defensive closeouts prevented easy perimeter looks during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 8.1m -4.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A brief cameo at the end of the rotation offered virtually no time to influence the game's outcome. He essentially operated as a placeholder, moving the ball within the flow of the offense without forcing the issue. The negligible impact score reflects a purely developmental stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Entering the game for a quick spell, he executed a single clean offensive read but otherwise left a minimal footprint. His steady ball-handling prevented any disastrous turnovers during his brief time on the floor. The short leash meant his defensive positioning was barely tested by the opposition.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1