GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 35.6m
22
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+8.3

Masterful offensive orchestration drove a strong positive score despite some inefficiency from deep. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages beautifully, consistently finding the roll man or attacking the mid-range. His ability to control the game's tempo and limit defensive breakdowns outweighed the missed perimeter shots.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 35.6m -17.4
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 27.2m
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Capitalizing on mismatches in the mid-post anchored a highly productive shift. He punished smaller defenders with efficient shot-making without forcing bad looks or disrupting the offensive flow. While his hustle metrics were muted, his reliable scoring gravity and mistake-free execution provided a stabilizing force.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 27.2m -13.2
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 26.0m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.5

A defensive masterclass defined this performance, as his elite length and anticipation completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. He paired this suffocating defense with timely cuts to the basket, resulting in highly efficient scoring that far exceeded his recent averages. His ability to generate turnovers and instantly convert them into transition points drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +7.5
Defense +11.3
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 26.0m -12.7
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 13.3%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 4
S Duncan Robinson 24.9m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Lethal perimeter spacing kept the offense humming, though a lack of defensive resistance limited his overall ceiling. Opponents frequently targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his outside shooting gravity. His impact was strictly tied to his shooting stroke, as he offered little in terms of hustle or disruption.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +40.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 24.9m -12.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 24.6m
19
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.8

Dominant interior finishing fueled a massive overall impact and maintained a stellar streak of efficiency. He consistently sealed his man deep in the post, converting high-percentage looks to overwhelm the opposing frontcourt. His defensive rebounding and rim protection further solidified a commanding two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 24.6m -12.0
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Elite physical defense was offset by a clunky offensive showing that bogged down the spacing. He struggled to finish through contact around the rim, wasting valuable interior touches. While he anchored the defense effectively, the missed bunnies ultimately dragged his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 24.4m -11.8
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 5
9
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

A high-energy defensive effort was almost entirely undone by reckless offensive execution. He forced the issue in transition and bricked multiple open looks from the perimeter, killing the team's offensive flow. His defensive versatility and hustle kept him near neutral, but the wasted possessions were glaring.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 23.1m -11.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 17.6m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Excellent point-of-attack defense partially salvaged a night where his offensive rhythm was non-existent. He failed to hit a single field goal, stalling out several half-court possessions with passive play. However, his relentless ball pressure and ability to navigate screens kept the opposition from fully exploiting his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +8.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 17.6m -8.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

Functioning as a one-man wrecking crew in the passing lanes drove a massive positive impact despite a near-total lack of scoring. He generated deflections and secured crucial 50/50 balls, thriving on chaotic defensive energy. This performance proved that relentless effort and defensive disruption can completely override offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +8.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 14.3m -7.0
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 13.3m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers instead of utilizing his burst resulted in a disjointed and negative performance. Poor shot selection and a lack of defensive intensity bailed out the defense and stalled the offense. The inability to generate paint touches or disrupt the opponent's backcourt rendered his minutes largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 13.3m -6.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Looking completely out of sync, he failed to generate any positive momentum during a brief stint. He whiffed on his lone attempt and offered zero hustle plays to compensate for the lack of production. The stark drop-off from his recent scoring tear highlighted his inability to impact the game when his shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Failing to make any discernible imprint, his minutes were essentially a placeholder that yielded a slight negative return. He offered no offensive initiation and completely lacked the hustle required to swing momentum. His passivity on both ends of the floor rendered him a non-factor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 2.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Marking a sharp departure from his recent efficient stretch, he failed to register a single offensive statistic. He was unable to establish deep post position or alter shots around the rim, rendering his presence largely ineffective. The lack of physical imposition on either end resulted in a quiet, negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 2.4m -1.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 34.5m
19
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite strong defensive metrics and solid hustle, his overall impact slipped into the red due to inefficient shooting from the floor. Settling for heavily contested looks inside the arc negated the value of his perimeter spacing. His defensive rotations remained crisp, but the wasted offensive possessions ultimately capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 34.5m -16.8
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 30.4m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

Poor defensive resistance severely punished his overall impact, completely erasing the value of his outside shooting. His inability to contain his primary matchup on the perimeter allowed the opposition to capitalize at will. He essentially traded baskets without offering any resistance on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.3
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 30.4m -14.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Brandon Miller 30.0m
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

An icy shooting night completely derailed his offensive value, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. Although he competed hard defensively and generated extra possessions through hustle, forcing a barrage of empty shots stifled the team's half-court rhythm. The sheer volume of wasted possessions overshadowed his commendable effort on the other side of the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +4.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 30.0m -14.7
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
4
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.1

By embracing a low-usage offensive role, he anchored a highly positive stint despite a sharp drop in scoring volume. He focused entirely on setting bruising screens to free up shooters and altering shots in the paint. This performance highlighted his ability to control the game's flow without needing touches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 24.1m -11.7
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 23.1m
8
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-12.7

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock cratered his net impact and fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. A stark drop in scoring efficiency short-circuited the offense, making it impossible to establish any momentum. Even with marginal defensive contributions, his inability to orchestrate a functional half-court attack proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense -5.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 23.1m -11.2
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
Sion James 22.1m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

High-motor defensive plays masked a subpar shooting performance and kept his minutes in the green. He consistently blew up pick-and-rolls and fought through screens, creating a positive ripple effect on the defensive end. His willingness to do the dirty work ensured he was a net positive despite offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +6.4
Defense +6.6
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 22.1m -10.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Tre Mann 17.8m
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

A cold shooting night severely hampered his utility and dragged down his overall score. While he provided decent defensive resistance and adequate hustle, his inability to convert manageable looks stalled the second unit's momentum. The lack of scoring punch ultimately outweighed his functional defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 17.8m -8.7
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Floating on the perimeter rather than attacking the paint resulted in a slightly negative showing. Marginal defensive impact and inconsistent shooting efficiency prevented him from tipping the scales in either direction. A lack of disruptive defensive plays kept him from finding a rhythm or leaving a distinct footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -19.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 17.6m -8.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Stifling interior defense kept his head above water despite a complete disappearance on the offensive end. He failed to register a field goal, snapping a highly efficient streak, but his ability to anchor the paint salvaged his minutes. His impact was entirely reliant on his defensive positioning and rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.7
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 16.7m -8.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 14.2m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Elite hustle metrics and suffocating point-of-attack defense drove a massive positive score in limited minutes. He terrorized ball-handlers, creating chaos in the passing lanes to generate immense value without needing offensive volume. This was a masterclass in shifting momentum through sheer energy and defensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +9.4
Defense +7.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 14.2m -6.8
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.1

Flawless execution of his specific role yielded a modest positive impact during a brief stint. He focused entirely on serving as a vertical spacer and screener, completely avoiding negative plays. It was a highly disciplined, low-mistake shift that stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -82.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 7.2m -3.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Serving as a passive placeholder, he failed to register a single positive or negative metric across the board. He essentially occupied space on the floor without influencing the action in any meaningful way. The slight negative score reflects the opportunity cost of his total lack of engagement.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.4m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0