GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 39.6m
31
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite offensive orchestration and active hands in the passing lanes completely overshadowed a subpar shooting night. By manipulating pick-and-roll coverages to spoon-feed teammates, he drove a massive positive impact without needing his own jumper to fall.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 17/18 (94.4%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +7.1
Defense +9.2
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 39.6m -23.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 51.7%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 7
S Ausar Thompson 30.3m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Smothering perimeter defense and excellent shot selection were completely neutralized by costly live-ball turnovers. He consistently disrupted the opposing team's primary actions, but giving the ball right back in transition kept his overall impact perfectly flat.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 30.3m -17.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Isaiah Stewart 30.2m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Anchoring the paint with physical drop coverage generated an elite defensive rating, but his inability to finish through contact dragged down the overall score. Offensive stagnation and poorly timed moving screens ultimately outweighed his rim-deterrence.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +10.2
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 30.2m -17.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 17.4%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 20.3m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Missing a string of clean catch-and-shoot opportunities severely hampered the team's half-court spacing. Opponents aggressively chased him off the line, and his inability to punish them from deep resulted in a heavily negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 20.3m -11.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 18.4m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Continuing a reliable streak of high-percentage interior finishing, he capitalized on deep post position to generate steady offense. While his overall volume dipped from recent highs, disciplined verticality at the rim ensured a positive net return.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 18.4m -10.7
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Opportunistic cuts to the basket boosted his scoring efficiency, yet his overall impact slipped into the negative. Poor rotational awareness during a critical third-quarter stretch allowed opponents to generate uncontested corner threes at his expense.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 26.2m -15.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

Catching fire from the perimeter completely transformed the spacing for the second unit and spiked his impact metrics. He relentlessly punished defenders for going under screens, breaking out of a recent slump with decisive, high-quality shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 23.9m -13.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaden Ivey 21.4m
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.2

Passive offensive engagement and forced drives into traffic resulted in a catastrophic net rating. He struggled to break down his primary defender, leading to stagnant possessions and a severe lack of overall production.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 21.4m -12.4
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Forcing wild attempts at the rim against set defenses absolutely cratered his overall value. While he showed flashes of defensive switchability, the sheer number of empty offensive trips made him a massive liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 17.5m -10.2
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Paul Reed 12.3m
9
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.9

Total domination of the offensive glass and flawless finishing around the basket fueled an astronomical per-minute impact. His chaotic energy completely overwhelmed the opposing backup bigs, swinging the game's momentum during a crucial rotational window.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +48.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 12.3m -7.2
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 34.7m
36
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Scorching shot-making from beyond the arc shattered his recent averages and drove a massive offensive rating. He consistently punished drop coverage by hunting pull-up jumpers in transition, forcing the defense to completely alter their game plan.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 7/14 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 34.7m -20.2
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Davion Mitchell 33.3m
8
pts
1
reb
11
ast
Impact
-2.7

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and loose-ball recoveries spiked his hustle metrics to team-high levels. However, his overall rating slipped into the red due to erratic ball security and stalled half-court sets when operating as the primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +8.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 33.3m -19.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Bam Adebayo 32.9m
15
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Elite rim deterrence and active rotations anchored a massive defensive impact score. He continues to struggle finishing through contact in the paint, but relentless activity on the glass perfectly masked those offensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.6
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 32.9m -19.1
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 31.5m
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

A high volume of clanked perimeter jumpers completely derailed his overall value, dropping his efficiency well below his recent hot streak. While his on-ball defensive metrics remained solid, forcing contested mid-range looks repeatedly stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 31.5m -18.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 27.3m
4
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Impact was entirely generated on the less glamorous side of the ball, fueled by elite rim protection and high-motor closeouts. His touch around the basket abandoned him completely, but generating extra possessions through sheer hustle kept his net rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +7.3
Defense +10.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 27.3m -15.9
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
19
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Surgical precision in the mid-post allowed him to systematically dismantle smaller defenders. By refusing to settle for bad looks and executing decisive cuts, he maximized his offensive touches to generate a highly efficient positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 29.8m -17.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.7

Settling for heavily contested deep looks absolutely tanked his net rating in this matchup. Even with respectable defensive rotations, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions created a massive deficit whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.0%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 23.9m -13.9
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Dru Smith 14.7m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.4

Maximized a brief rotational stint by playing mistake-free basketball and capitalizing on every open look. His energetic closeouts and timely weak-side help provided a massive, unexpected spark to the second unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 14.7m -8.5
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Quick-trigger floor spacing during a short rotational burst provided a minor but noticeable offensive lift. He was targeted slightly on defense, but his willingness to immediately fire off the catch kept his net impact in the black.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 6.3m -3.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A brief cameo yielded a negative return primarily due to missed defensive assignments in transition. He failed to register any meaningful offensive actions, allowing opponents to target him during a quick second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +78.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 5.6m -3.2
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0