Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead CHI lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CHI 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

CHI CHI Shot-making Δ

Vučević Hard 9/20 +0.8
Dosunmu 10/15 +8.4
Buzelis 7/15 +2.1
Huerter 4/13 -5.3
Jones 1/7 -5.0
Williams 2/5 +0.4
Phillips Hard 2/4 +0.5
Okoro Hard 1/4 -2.2
Olbrich Open 1/2 -0.3
Terry Hard 0/2 -1.7

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Stewart 14/17 +10.8
Holland II 5/11 -1.3
Thompson Open 5/11 -2.2
Reed 4/10 -1.1
Robinson Hard 4/9 +3.6
Green Hard 4/9 -0.3
Jenkins 1/8 -6.2
Ivey Hard 3/7 -0.4
Lanier Hard 3/5 +3.5
LeVert Hard 2/4 +0.9
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CHI
DET
37/87 Field Goals 45/92
42.5% Field Goal % 48.9%
13/34 3-Pointers 12/33
38.2% 3-Point % 36.4%
6/9 Free Throws 6/8
66.7% Free Throw % 75.0%
51.1% True Shooting % 56.5%
52 Total Rebounds 50
15 Offensive 8
30 Defensive 31
27 Assists 35
1.59 Assist/TO Ratio 3.89
17 Turnovers 8
5 Steals 10
8 Blocks 8
15 Fouls 14
48 Points in Paint 62
20 Fast Break Pts 11
11 Points off TOs 18
14 Second Chance Pts 17
37 Bench Points 37
7 Largest Lead 18
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Isaiah Stewart
31 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 30.5 MIN
+32.52
2
Nikola Vučević
20 PTS · 16 REB · 4 AST · 32.1 MIN
+23.51
3
Ayo Dosunmu
24 PTS · 1 REB · 3 AST · 31.1 MIN
+20.11
4
Matas Buzelis
20 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 32.9 MIN
+15.11
5
Javonte Green
11 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 25.4 MIN
+14.32
6
Ronald Holland II
11 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 26.3 MIN
+11.41
7
Ausar Thompson
11 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 28.9 MIN
+11.0
8
Paul Reed
9 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 26.3 MIN
+10.68
9
Daniss Jenkins
2 PTS · 6 REB · 15 AST · 28.2 MIN
+7.07
10
Duncan Robinson
12 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 22.6 MIN
+6.81
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:22 J. Phillips 3PT (5 PTS) (L. Olbrich 1 AST) 93–108
Q4 0:37 J. Green 26' 3PT (11 PTS) (D. Jenkins 15 AST) 90–108
Q4 0:55 T. Smith REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 90–105
Q4 0:57 MISS L. Olbrich Free Throw 2 of 2 90–105
Q4 0:57 TEAM offensive REBOUND 90–105
Q4 0:57 MISS L. Olbrich Free Throw 1 of 2 90–105
Q4 0:57 T. Smith shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Olbrich 2 FT) 90–105
Q4 1:12 A. Thompson personal FOUL (4 PF) 90–105
Q4 1:21 J. Green running finger roll Layup (8 PTS) (A. Thompson 3 AST) 90–105
Q4 1:21 A. Thompson STEAL (3 STL) 90–103
Q4 1:21 J. Carter lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 90–103
Q4 1:36 A. Thompson cutting DUNK (11 PTS) (I. Stewart 1 AST) 90–103
Q4 1:53 N. Vučević 27' 3PT (20 PTS) (A. Dosunmu 3 AST) 90–101
Q4 2:11 I. Stewart turnaround Hook (31 PTS) (C. Lanier 1 AST) 87–101
Q4 2:26 M. Buzelis personal FOUL (1 PF) 87–99

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

Why this game is worth arguing about

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Isaiah Stewart 30.5m
31
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+31.7

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency saw him punish every mismatch and finish through contact with ease. He anchored the paint with bruising physicality, deterring drives to fuel an elite defensive rating. This unstoppable two-way dominance, highlighted by a barrage of uncontested rim finishes, completely overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 14/17 (82.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.7%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Scoring +28.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 28.9m
11
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Suffocating point-of-attack defense defined this performance, as he completely erased his primary assignment to generate a massive defensive impact. He paired this with relentless cutting and offensive rebounding to manufacture easy looks at the rim. Even without a jump shot, his sheer athleticism and motor tilted the game's momentum whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Paul Reed 26.3m
9
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.8

Chaotic but effective energy in the paint yielded a superb hustle rating, keeping multiple possessions alive through sheer willpower. Although his recent streak of hyper-efficient finishing cooled off, his activity level in the pick-and-roll disrupted the opponent's defensive shell. He consistently outworked bigger matchups on the interior to secure a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 22.6m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Elite floor spacing from his catch-and-shoot gravity kept the defense stretched thin, but his overall impact still slipped into the red. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in isolation, exploiting his lateral quickness to generate high-percentage looks in the half-court. While the shot-making was crisp, the defensive concessions ultimately outweighed his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaden Ivey 19.9m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

Blistering end-to-end speed created transition opportunities, but poor decision-making in traffic capped his offensive ceiling. He struggled to navigate through drop coverage, settling for contested floaters rather than pressuring the rim. A few ill-timed defensive gambles allowed back-door cuts that nudged his net rating into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
15
ast
Impact
-5.2

A staggering drop-off in scoring aggression allowed defenders to play strictly for the pass, bogging down the team's half-court rhythm. Despite orchestrating the offense with elite vision to rack up assists, his complete inability to convert his own looks crippled the spacing. Strong point-of-attack defense kept him playable, but the lack of scoring gravity ultimately dragged his impact down.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +40.2
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring -3.1
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.7

Breaking out of a brutal shooting slump, he attacked closeouts with newfound conviction to double his recent scoring average. His length and anticipation on the wing fueled a strong defensive impact, frequently blowing up dribble hand-offs. This aggressive, two-way assertiveness finally translated his raw athleticism into a tangible positive influence.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Relentless ball pressure and perfectly timed weak-side rotations fueled a dominant defensive impact. He consistently turned defense into offense, using his high motor to leak out for easy transition buckets. Even with a shaky outside stroke, his sheer physical disruption dictated the tempo whenever he stepped on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +9.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
Chaz Lanier 12.0m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Capitalizing on brief rotational minutes, he showcased excellent shot readiness to significantly outpace his usual scoring output. However, his defensive positioning was frequently exploited, as he was slow to navigate through off-ball screens. The crisp perimeter execution was nearly entirely offset by the points surrendered on his defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +72.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +6.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 12.0m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Operating primarily as a secondary initiator, he provided steady, mistake-free minutes during a brief rotation stint. He used his veteran savvy to stay attached to shooters, generating a respectable defensive rating. While his offensive volume was muted compared to recent games, his controlled pace kept the second unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.8

A brief and entirely ineffective stint saw him fail to generate any dribble penetration or offensive flow. He was heavily targeted by bigger guards on the perimeter, forcing the defense into unwanted rotations. The total lack of offensive production during his minutes led to a swift and steep negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tolu Smith 1.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

Thrown in for the final handful of possessions, he simply logged cardio without registering any meaningful statistics. The slight negative impact stems entirely from being on the floor during a meaningless late-game opponent bucket. There was zero opportunity to establish any sort of rhythm or presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Matas Buzelis 32.9m
20
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.0

High-level defensive rotations and active hands in the passing lanes drove a massive defensive impact score. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities from the perimeter, forcing the defense into difficult closeouts all night. This two-way versatility, highlighted by a steady diet of timely weak-side helps, firmly pushed his net rating into the green.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +0.9
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 48.1%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 2
20
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+27.1

Dominant interior positioning allowed him to control the glass and generate relentless second-chance opportunities. Even with a few forced looks in the mid-range, his sheer physical presence in the paint battered the opposing frontcourt. His surprisingly stout drop coverage shut down driving lanes, cementing a massive positive influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +18.4
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kevin Huerter 30.2m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.4

An ice-cold perimeter performance completely cratered his offensive value, as missing every attempt from deep allowed defenders to pack the paint. He tried to compensate with active closeouts on the other end, but the spacing issues he created were too severe to overcome. The stark departure from his normally efficient shooting rhythm derailed several crucial offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Jones 30.2m
6
pts
7
reb
12
ast
Impact
-5.7

Elite playmaking vision was entirely overshadowed by a severe inability to finish inside the arc, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring games. Opposing guards simply went under every screen, daring him to shoot and bogging down the pick-and-roll attack. The resulting lack of scoring gravity dragged his overall impact deeply into the red despite the high assist volume.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Scoring +2.1
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 25.0m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite excellent perimeter containment that anchored a stellar defensive rating, his complete lack of scoring gravity stalled half-court sets. The massive offensive drop-off from his recent efficient stretch meant defenders could freely sag off him into the paint. Hustle plays partially mitigated the damage, but the inability to punish closeouts kept his overall impact deeply negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Scoring -0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Ayo Dosunmu 31.1m
24
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.0

Aggressive downhill drives and decisive catch-and-shoot execution fueled a massive box score impact. He consistently punished defensive lapses in transition, converting high-quality looks to significantly outpace his recent scoring averages. Active hands and relentless transition running further amplified a highly efficient offensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +20.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Defensive miscommunications and slow rotations in the frontcourt bled points during his brief time on the floor. He was virtually invisible in the offensive half-court, failing to establish deep position or demand the ball. This passivity, combined with bleeding value on the defensive glass, resulted in a severely negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

While he finally found the bottom of the net from beyond the arc to snap a miserable shooting slump, his overall floor presence remained disjointed. He provided solid weak-side rim protection, but a tendency to float offensively limited his overall value. The lack of rebounding aggression and off-ball movement ultimately kept his net impact in negative territory.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Flashes of confident shot selection helped him break out of a recent scoreless rut, though his overall footprint remained minor. He competed hard on 50/50 balls to boost his hustle metrics, yet struggled to navigate through screens defensively. A few costly positional errors in transition ultimately tipped his overall impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dalen Terry 12.5m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Relentless energy on the defensive end disrupted opponent flow, but his complete offensive zeroes made him a liability on the other side. Defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, creating a 4-on-5 disadvantage during half-court sets. The hustle plays were commendable, yet they couldn't salvage a stint where he failed to generate any scoring threat.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

A microscopic stint on the floor offered virtually no time to establish any rhythm or defensive pressure. He was deployed purely as a situational filler, registering nothing but empty cardio during a disjointed stretch of play. The negative impact score is mostly a product of being on the floor for a quick opponent run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1