GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Isaiah Stewart 31.9m
7
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Bruising interior defense (+7.2) and relentless physical activity (+6.6 hustle) anchored a gritty two-way performance. Refusing to yield an inch of deep paint positioning forced opponents into low-percentage, contested floaters. He served as the emotional and physical backbone of the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 31.9m -16.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Cade Cunningham 29.1m
29
pts
3
reb
13
ast
Impact
+13.7

Absolute mastery of the pick-and-roll yielded a staggering +20.0 box score impact and +13.7 overall rating. Manipulating the drop coverage with precise pacing and elite vision tore the opposing defensive shell to shreds. He dictated the terms of engagement on nearly every half-court possession.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 29.1m -15.1
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Paul Reed 25.5m
8
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Operating as a highly effective roll man generated a massive +11.0 box score impact. Setting bone-crushing screens and rolling with purpose forced the defense into impossible rotation choices. His physical interior presence set a punishing tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 25.5m -13.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 20.8m
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A 38% dip in his usual offensive production muted his overall effectiveness, leading to a slightly negative total impact. Defenders aggressively top-sided his off-ball screens, denying him the airspace needed to get comfortable. Despite the shooting struggles, he maintained solid positional defense (+3.5) to stop the bleeding.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +64.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 20.8m -10.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 19.6m
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+7.8) and elite closing speed defined his highly positive +6.9 impact. He completely neutralized his primary matchup on the wing, denying entry passes and blowing up set plays before they developed. That defensive masterclass was supplemented by a steady diet of timely backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +59.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 19.6m -10.1
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

An unexpected offensive explosion (+107% vs average) paired with hawkish defense (+6.5) resulted in a massive +10.2 net impact. Punishing late closeouts and capitalizing on broken plays completely swung the momentum of the bench minutes. His two-way energy was the ultimate x-factor in breaking the game open.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.5
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 29.4m -15.3
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Lockdown perimeter isolation defense (+8.6) kept his value above water despite a quiet offensive night. Staying attached to the hip of primary creators and navigating screens flawlessly disrupted the opponent's primary actions. He proved his worth entirely on the less glamorous end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 24.0m -12.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
12
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.8

Steady offensive orchestration and disciplined point-of-attack defense (+5.0) yielded a highly positive +3.8 total impact. Even with his scoring output dropping 36% below his recent tear, his ability to organize the offense and contain dribble penetration proved invaluable. He played a mature, mistake-free brand of basketball.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 22.7m -11.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 22.1m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Blistering first-step acceleration compromised the paint defense all night, driving a +10.6 box score impact. Attacking the rim with relentless pressure forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for his teammates. He consistently won the point-of-attack battle against flat-footed defenders.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 22.1m -11.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.5

Flawless shot execution in a micro-stint generated an absurd +7.5 total impact in just five minutes of action. Capitalizing instantly on defensive miscommunications, he provided a lethal injection of instant offense. It was the definition of maximizing a short rotational leash.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 44.4%
Net Rtg +64.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 5.0m -2.6
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Tolu Smith 5.0m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Garbage time minutes yielded a neutral overall impact, defined mostly by adequate positional defense (+2.4). He held his ground on the block but failed to generate any offensive gravity. The stint was purely about eating the final minutes of the clock without making glaring mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +64.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 5.0m -2.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Rushed decision-making in limited action resulted in a slightly negative -1.4 impact. Failing to let the offense come to him disrupted the spacing during the closing minutes. He struggled to find the game's rhythm after coming in cold off the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +64.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 5.0m -2.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 30.5m
25
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

High-volume isolation possessions yielded empty calories, resulting in a brutal -9.5 total impact despite the heavy shooting volume. Forcing contested mid-range pull-ups bogged down the offensive flow and left the transition defense vulnerable. The heavy reliance on hero-ball ultimately yielded diminishing returns against set defensive coverages.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 42.4%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 30.5m -15.8
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S OG Anunoby 28.7m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Strong perimeter containment drove an elite +8.0 defensive rating, but his complete disappearance on the other end tanked his overall value. Passing up open looks on the wing led to a massive 71% drop in his usual scoring production. The lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -56.4
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.0
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 28.7m -14.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 25.7m
10
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless off-ball movement and high-motor closeouts generated a massive +7.3 hustle rating. He consistently blew up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter, creating marginal advantages that don't always show up in standard metrics. That two-way activity floor kept his overall impact positive despite a quiet offensive night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +7.3
Defense +3.9
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 25.7m -13.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite rim protection and paint deterrence (+7.8 defensive impact) anchored the second-unit defense. Even with his scoring volume plummeting 79% below his recent average, his sheer physical presence altering shots in the restricted area kept his total impact firmly in the green. He perfectly executed his role as a low-usage, high-leverage anchor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 24.8m -12.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.9

A staggering -16.9 net impact reflects an inability to establish deep post position or stretch the floor effectively. His offensive cratering—a 72% drop from his baseline—stalled out half-court sets and fed opponent transition opportunities. He looked entirely disconnected from the primary actions during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -65.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -6.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 22.5m -11.7
Impact -16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

An explosive perimeter shooting display (+278% above his recent baseline) single-handedly drove his +13.9 box score impact. Catch-and-shoot decisive actions punished defensive rotations all night. However, getting caught on screens at the point of attack (-1.0 defensive rating) slightly muted the overall damage he inflicted.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 94.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.0
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 24.9m -13.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness dragged his total impact firmly into the red (-5.5). While he found some rhythm in isolation sets, giving up straight-line drives on the other end negated his offensive contributions. His minutes were defined by a pattern of trading baskets rather than stringing together stops.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.7m -10.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 19.5m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Aggressive downhill drives sparked a sudden 137% surge in his usual offensive production. He consistently collapsed the defense on pick-and-roll actions, though minor defensive miscommunications kept his total impact slightly negative. The backup guard minutes were chaotic but injected much-needed pace into the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 19.5m -10.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Active hands in passing lanes and disciplined closeouts generated a solid +3.7 defensive rating. Unfortunately, a lack of gravity as a floor spacer allowed his primary defender to roam freely as a free safety. That offensive limitation kept his overall net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 16.3m -8.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Struggled to process defensive reads in limited action, leading to a negative overall impact (-3.4). Late rotations on weak-side help allowed easy dump-off passes at the rim. He simply couldn't find the rhythm of the game during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 8.9m -4.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

A complete offensive ghosting left the second unit playing four-on-five in the half-court. Failing to establish any physical presence on the block or the perimeter resulted in a heavily negative -4.4 impact. The opposing frontcourt entirely ignored him to double the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 8.9m -4.6
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
-3.5

Invisible during his brief rotation, failing to generate any meaningful gravity or defensive disruption. The complete lack of statistical footprint or hustle metrics resulted in a -3.5 net rating. He was essentially a cardio participant during a stagnant stretch of the quarter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -64.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 5.0m -2.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Incredible per-minute efficiency defined this brief but explosive +7.3 impact stint. Crashing the glass and diving for loose balls (+3.4 hustle) instantly flipped the momentum during a crucial late-game stretch. He maximized every second on the floor by doing the dirty work.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -64.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 4.6m -2.5
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0