GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.4m
29
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+18.9

Masterful offensive orchestration and high-level shot creation out of the pick-and-roll generated immense value across the board. His ability to dissect the defense while maintaining solid efficiency fueled a massive box score impact. Strong defensive engagement ensured his playmaking brilliance translated into a dominant net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +28.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 36.4m -19.7
Impact +18.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 33.8m
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Lethal perimeter spacing and excellent shot selection off screens perfectly leveraged his offensive role. Surprisingly robust hustle and defensive metrics proved he was much more than just a spot-up threat. His constant off-ball movement warped the opposing defense, driving a highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +7.8
Defense +6.3
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 33.8m -18.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 31.1m
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.7

A sharp drop in shooting efficiency from his recent hot streak severely damaged his overall impact. Clanking mid-range isolation jumpers stalled the offensive rhythm and allowed the defense to set up. Despite decent box score numbers, the missed opportunities dragged his net rating firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 31.1m -16.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 27.0m
18
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

A significant step back from his recent dominant scoring form limited his offensive gravity in the post. While his defensive presence remained solid, a lack of playmaking and potential turnover costs undermined his interior finishing. The drop in sheer volume as a roll man resulted in a surprisingly negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 27.0m -14.7
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 6
S Ausar Thompson 24.9m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite hustle plays and relentless off-ball cutting along the baseline drove a highly productive shift. His ability to double his usual scoring output through high-percentage interior looks punished the defense. Active hands in the passing lanes and transition finishing solidified a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 24.9m -13.6
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Missed perimeter attempts and a lack of floor-stretching gravity from the top of the key bogged down the half-court offense. While he provided sturdy interior defense, the inability to finish efficiently inside the arc hurt his overall value. The offensive limitations slightly outweighed his physical defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 21.6m -11.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

A massive, unexpected surge in perimeter efficiency salvaged what would have otherwise been a quiet night. His aggressive shot profile from deep finally paid off, forcing the defense to respect his outside stroke. However, minimal defensive impact at the point of attack kept his overall net rating hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 20.4m -11.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 16.4m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

Extreme offensive passivity prevented him from making a meaningful dent in the game. Passing up open looks on the wing negated his perfect shooting clip and stalled second-unit momentum. A lack of hustle plays further contributed to a negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 16.4m -8.9
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

A drastic regression from his recent scoring tear completely neutralized his offensive impact. Poor shot selection and missed perimeter looks off the dribble derailed the momentum he had built in previous games. Despite adequate defensive effort, the lack of scoring punch resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 14.4m -7.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 9.7m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

A brief, unimpactful stint was marred by defensive lapses and a lack of offensive aggression. Failing to utilize his elite burst to pressure the rim in transition left the offense settling for poor looks. The negative defensive rating highlights his struggles to stay in front of his man on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 9.7m -5.3
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Forced shots and empty offensive possessions defined a highly damaging short stint. His inability to convert contested looks derailed the offense and led to negative box score metrics. Even a brief flash of hustle on the glass couldn't compensate for the overall disjointed play.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.9
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 4.3m -2.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 38.4m
35
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.6

A massive scoring explosion fueled an astronomical box score impact. Exceptional downhill shot selection and playmaking versatility overwhelmed the defense throughout his heavy minutes. Two-way activity, highlighted by strong weak-side defensive rotations, capped off a dominant, game-defining performance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 14/15 (93.3%)
Advanced
TS% 77.4%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 38.4m -21.0
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jerami Grant 33.7m
29
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

High-volume perimeter shooting heavily buoyed his overall impact despite some inefficiency inside the arc. The aggressive spot-up shot profile forced defensive rotations, generating immense value in the half-court. Consistent defensive engagement on the wing ensured his scoring surge translated into a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 33.7m -18.5
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Elite rim protection and defensive anchoring in the drop coverage drove a highly positive impact score. His continued streak of hyper-efficient interior finishing maximized his limited offensive touches as a lob threat. Active hustle plays and rebounding dominance further cemented his value in the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 30.3m -16.5
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 24.4m
1
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.4

Impact plummeted due to a complete offensive disappearance compared to his recent scoring tear. Blanking from the field on forced perimeter looks created empty possessions that dragged down his overall value. A modest hustle contribution couldn't salvage a deeply negative two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 24.4m -13.3
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sidy Cissoko 22.3m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Tremendous hustle metrics were the primary catalyst for his positive rating, reflecting relentless energy plays on loose balls. A sudden, unexpected burst of perimeter efficiency from the corners provided a massive boost over his recent struggles. This high-activity shift proved highly disruptive to the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +7.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 22.3m -12.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
28
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.3

A brutal volume-shooting approach from beyond the arc severely suppressed what could have been a dominant impact score. The sheer quantity of missed pull-up jumpers created long rebounds and transition opportunities for the opponent. Despite strong overall box metrics, the inefficiency ultimately flattened his net value to near-neutral.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.9%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 34.9m -19.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Murray 27.6m
0
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.7

Total offensive passivity created a glaring negative impact, as he failed to capitalize on his floor time. While he generated solid hustle metrics via deflections, the inability to threaten the defense allowed opponents to sag off and clog the paint. The lack of scoring gravity ultimately outweighed his defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 27.6m -15.0
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Duop Reath 13.5m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Flawless shooting execution in limited minutes provided immediate offensive gravity as a trail big. However, it was his exceptional defensive positioning and hustle that truly spiked his overall impact. He maximized a short stint by making zero mistakes and contesting everything around the basket.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 13.5m -7.3
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Caleb Love 11.9m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Empty offensive trips and poor shot selection out of the pick-and-roll tanked his overall rating in a brief appearance. Failing to generate any rim pressure left the offense stagnant while he was on the floor. A lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack compounded the damage of his scoreless shift.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -3.5
Avg player in 11.9m -6.5
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

A microscopic stint yielded negative value due to defensive lapses in transition. Failing to register any hustle stats or offensive attempts made him a complete non-factor on the wing. He simply occupied space without altering the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -48.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 3.0m -1.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1