GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.1m
18
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.8

An astronomical defensive rating anchored his elite overall impact, showcasing exceptional point-of-attack disruption. While his perimeter shot abandoned him, he compensated by orchestrating the offense and generating high-quality looks for others. His physical defense against the opposing primary initiator changed the entire complexion of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +22.9
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 38.1m -21.0
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 6
BLK 3
TO 6
S Jalen Duren 32.3m
21
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.4

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive box score impact. He extended his streak of highly efficient finishing by feasting on dump-offs and putbacks. The combination of elite rim-running and physical screening completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +29.3
Avg player in 32.3m -17.9
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 29.6m
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Elite connective tissue play defined his minutes, combining lockdown defense with hyper-efficient interior finishing. His stellar hustle rating reflects a relentless approach to loose balls and offensive glass crashing. He didn't force any bad shots, perfectly executing his role as a slashing defensive specialist.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 29.6m -16.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Daniss Jenkins 26.6m
6
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-17.9

A catastrophic shot selection profile single-handedly sank his impact score to a team-worst deficit. Firing endless blanks from beyond the arc and forcing wild drives into traffic killed offensive momentum. The massive drop-off from his recent scoring tear severely handicapped the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense -4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 26.6m -14.7
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 26.2m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

An abysmal shooting night completely cratered his net impact, as he forced contested mid-range jumpers and bricked open looks. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions overshadowed any marginal defensive contributions. His inability to punish smaller defenders in the post stalled the offense repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 2/14 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -33.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 26.2m -14.4
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Imposing physical defense and elite rim deterrence drove a highly positive net rating. He maximized his limited offensive touches by finishing strongly through contact rather than settling for jumpers. His ability to anchor the paint allowed the perimeter defenders to gamble aggressively.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +11.0
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 25.1m -13.8
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
Caris LeVert 24.8m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Highly efficient perimeter shot-making and a robust defensive rating highlighted a strong individual performance. However, his overall impact flatlined near neutral likely due to subtle rotational breakdowns or being on the floor during opponent runs. He thrived as a spot-up threat, punishing late closeouts consistently.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.8
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 24.8m -13.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.0

A spectacular breakout performance fueled by relentless rim pressure and hyper-efficient finishing. He shattered his recent scoring slump by attacking closeouts with violence and converting in traffic. This massive box score surge provided the exact spark the secondary unit desperately needed.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 17.4m -9.6
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 14.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.9

A completely hollow offensive stint tanked his rating, as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt. His inability to break down the defense off the dribble resulted in stagnant, unproductive possessions. The lack of scoring gravity or playmaking rendered him a severe liability during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +20.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.1
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 14.2m -7.9
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Barely saw the floor and failed to register any meaningful offensive statistics during his brief stint. His lack of involvement completely erased the scoring punch he had been providing over the last week. The negative impact score reflects empty cardio minutes where he couldn't influence the game's pace.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +46.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 5.6m -3.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 37.7m
29
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.1

An elite offensive engine tonight, driving a massive positive impact through high-volume, highly efficient perimeter shooting. Sizzling execution from deep stretched the defense and opened up driving lanes for teammates. His aggressive shot selection consistently punished mismatches on the wing.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +20.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 37.7m -20.8
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dyson Daniels 37.4m
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite point-of-attack disruption defined this outing, reflected in a staggering defensive impact and relentless hustle metrics. However, poor finishing around the rim and empty perimeter attempts prevented a monster overall rating. He generated transition opportunities through sheer effort but couldn't capitalize on them offensively.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +7.7
Defense +9.9
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 37.4m -20.6
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 35.9m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.1

Offensive volume spiked significantly above his season average, but settling for a barrage of ill-advised perimeter heaves diluted his overall efficiency. While his interior finishing and strong rim protection kept him afloat, the outside shot selection dragged his net score down to neutral. He needs to leverage his athleticism in the paint rather than drifting to the arc.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 35.9m -19.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
26
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Searing perimeter execution fueled a dominant box score impact, as he relentlessly punished drop coverage from deep. Pairing that elite shot-making with a stellar defensive rating created a massive two-way footprint. His ability to hit contested catch-and-shoot looks completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.2
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 35.3m -19.5
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

A robust defensive rating was completely undone by an offensive disappearing act. Firing blanks from the perimeter suffocated floor spacing and tanked his overall efficiency. His inability to find a rhythm on the wing forced the offense into stagnant half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 21.8m -12.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Outstanding defensive rotations and high-motor closeouts kept his overall impact from completely tanking. However, a total inability to convert on offense rendered him a liability on that end of the floor. He functioned strictly as an energy specialist, providing zero gravity in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +8.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 22.6m -12.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Settling exclusively for low-percentage perimeter looks severely damaged his offensive value. Although he provided solid resistance on the defensive end, the empty offensive possessions created a negative overall swing. He failed to pressure the rim, allowing defenders to stay glued to primary options.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 16.9m -9.2
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 16.6m
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.5

A lack of aggressive shot-hunting limited his offensive footprint, resulting in a noticeable dip from his usual production. While he held up adequately on defense, his primary value is spacing the floor, which was neutralized by low volume. The offense bogged down during his minutes because he passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -44.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 16.6m -9.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.6

Completely vanished as a scoring threat, crashing back to earth after a highly efficient recent stretch. His playmaking provided a minor boost, but the total lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. The passive approach offensively resulted in a negative net rating despite decent ball movement.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 15.8m -8.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0