GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 32.6m
16
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

Dominated the interior through sheer physicality, converting nearly every look around the basket. His massive rebounding advantage generated crucial second-chance points and ended defensive possessions cleanly. The combination of elite finishing and rim deterrence resulted in a dominant net positive score.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +40.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 32.6m -17.9
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 31.7m
23
pts
6
reb
12
ast
Impact
+12.3

High-level orchestration of the offense outweighed a somewhat inefficient shooting night. He manipulated defensive shells at will, generating a massive volume of open looks for teammates through precise drive-and-kick reads. The sheer gravity of his playmaking kept his net impact heavily in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +6.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +29.6
Avg player in 31.7m -17.3
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 27.4m
13
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+8.2

Elite finishing at the rim and suffocating point-of-attack defense drove a massive positive impact. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll sets, turning deflections into immediate transition opportunities. The complete absence of forced shots highlighted a highly disciplined offensive performance.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.5
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 27.4m -15.0
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Isaiah Stewart 25.5m
19
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Spacing the floor as a trail big completely opened up the paint for the guards. His ability to knock down trail threes punished the defense for dropping into the paint, while his sturdy post defense neutralized interior threats. A highly efficient, mistake-free performance that perfectly executed the game plan.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 25.5m -13.9
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 23.8m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

A disastrous perimeter shooting night completely neutralized his primary weapon. Because he couldn't space the floor effectively, his defensive limitations were glaringly exposed in isolation matchups. Despite decent hustle metrics, the sheer volume of missed threes buried his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 23.8m -13.1
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 21.5m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Excellent shooting efficiency was entirely undone by what must have been a brutal string of turnovers or defensive breakdowns. Careless passes in traffic fueled opponent fast breaks, erasing the value of his perimeter scoring. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, giving up easy penetration.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 21.5m -11.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

An absolute nightmare of a shooting performance completely tanked his offensive value. Forcing wild attempts at the rim and clanking open threes resulted in a string of empty, momentum-killing possessions. He managed to provide some resistance defensively, but the offensive black hole was too deep to escape.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 19.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 18.2m -9.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.6

Capitalized on every opportunity by attacking closeouts aggressively and finishing through contact. His value was heavily bolstered by relentless on-ball pressure that disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. A perfectly balanced two-way performance defined by high-motor plays.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 16.9m -9.2
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaden Ivey 15.6m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Flawless shooting mechanics couldn't save him from a negative overall impact due to severe defensive lapses. He consistently lost his man off the ball and likely surrendered multiple high-value scoring opportunities. The scoring efficiency was completely negated by poor ball security and defensive inattention.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 15.6m -8.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Paul Reed 15.4m
6
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Struggled to convert high-percentage looks in the paint, leaving valuable points on the board. While he dominated the glass, his offensive clumsiness and likely foul trouble dragged his net score into the red. He failed to anchor the drop coverage effectively, allowing too much space for floaters.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -44.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 15.4m -8.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Blew multiple defensive assignments in a very short stint, immediately bleeding value. The inability to stay attached to shooters on the perimeter forced emergency rotations that broke the defensive shell. A completely ineffective shift that forced an early substitution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -124.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Failed to make any positive contributions during garbage time minutes. Forcing quick shots out of the flow of the offense resulted in immediate empty possessions. He lacked the defensive intensity needed to salvage the brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -128.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Surrendered far too much ground defensively, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the rim protection. Even with a perfect conversion on his lone shot, the defensive bleeding kept his impact firmly negative. He looked a step slow navigating through off-ball screens.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -128.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 3.6m -1.9
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
32
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+31.2

Absolute offensive masterclass defined by lethal shotmaking from beyond the arc and elite decision-making. He consistently punished drop coverage with pull-up daggers while generating massive defensive value through aggressive passing lane jumps. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he created overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -43.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +28.5
Hustle +9.9
Defense +12.8
Raw total +51.2
Avg player in 36.5m -20.0
Impact +31.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jericho Sims 30.6m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Despite perfect shooting from the floor, a disastrous turnover rate absolutely tanked his overall value. He repeatedly fumbled interior passes, killing offensive momentum and fueling transition opportunities for the opponent. A few costly moving screens further eroded his net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 30.6m -16.6
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 28.7m
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Impact cratered due to a string of empty possessions and likely live-ball turnovers that erased his scoring contributions. The heavy diet of contested midrange jumpers dragged his overall efficiency into the red. His inability to contain dribble penetration on the other end compounded the damage.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 28.7m -15.7
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Myles Turner 25.1m
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Perimeter shotmaking provided a solid baseline, but he gave it all back through sloppy ball security and foul trouble. Getting caught out of position against quicker bigs forced him into low-value defensive fouls. His inability to secure defensive rebounds in traffic limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 25.1m -13.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 22.9m
10
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.0

A brutal shooting slump defined this outing, as he forced contested looks early in the shot clock to break his rhythm. Clanking a barrage of attempts from deep heavily penalized his offensive rating despite decent rebounding numbers. He salvaged a fraction of his value through active hands in the passing lanes, but the poor shot selection was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 22.9m -12.5
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Settling for contested perimeter looks severely depressed his overall impact. The inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. While he offered some resistance on the perimeter, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions kept him firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 28.5m -15.5
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 20.5m
7
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Horrific finishing around the rim threatened to derail his night, but he completely salvaged his impact through sheer effort. Relentless work on the offensive glass and exceptional weak-side defensive rotations kept his net score above water. His willingness to do the dirty work masked one of his worst shooting performances of the month.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.2
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 20.5m -11.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Gary Harris 13.6m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Minimal offensive involvement was overshadowed by what appeared to be a string of costly defensive rotations or quick fouls. He struggled to stay in front of his primary assignment, bleeding value on the perimeter. The lack of secondary playmaking meant he offered nothing to offset those defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 13.6m -7.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Thrived in a low-usage connector role by making quick, decisive reads that kept the offense humming. His value was driven entirely by high-IQ defensive rotations and perfectly timed hustle plays rather than scoring volume. He completely locked down his assignment during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 11.5m -6.3
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Essentially just logged cardio during his brief stint on the floor. He stayed out of the way offensively and didn't make any glaring mistakes, resulting in a perfectly neutral impact. A quiet, mistake-free shift that neither helped nor hurt the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +88.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 7.8m -4.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Injected immediate chaos into the game with a high-energy burst that caught the defense sleeping. Capitalizing on broken plays and transition leaks allowed him to generate massive value in minimal minutes. His relentless motor created extra possessions that padded his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 41.2%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 4.8m -2.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 4.8m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief rotation spot. Forcing heavily contested perimeter looks quickly dragged his efficiency down. He failed to make a dent defensively, resulting in a slightly negative overall shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Made the most of a quick cameo by hunting high-value shots and converting efficiently. A timely defensive rotation prevented an easy bucket, padding his net positive score. He operated decisively as a secondary ball-handler to keep the second unit organized.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 4.8m -2.5
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0