GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.5m
10
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-23.1

An abysmal shooting night completely derailed the primary offense, as he repeatedly settled for contested, low-percentage jumpers. The high playmaking volume couldn't salvage a disastrous net rating fueled by dead-ball misses that ignited opponent transition attacks.

Shooting
FG 3/16 (18.8%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 4/9 (44.4%)
Advanced
TS% 25.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense -9.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 38.5m -20.7
Impact -23.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 28.5m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.3

Dominated the mid-post matchups by exploiting smaller defenders and making rapid, decisive reads. His exceptional two-way play was highlighted by textbook weak-side rotations that consistently blew up opponent set plays.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +13.9
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 28.5m -15.3
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 28.4m
16
pts
18
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.9

Commanded the paint with overwhelming physicality, creating a massive possession advantage through second-chance opportunities. His vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection forced opposing guards to constantly abandon their drives.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.1
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 28.4m -15.3
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 27.0m
19
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive scheme, creating massive driving lanes for his teammates. While his scoring efficiency was superb, a few late-clock defensive miscommunications kept his overall impact from reaching the elite tier.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 27.0m -14.5
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 19.1m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Offensive hesitation and a few poorly timed gambles for steals compromised his team's defensive shell. Despite showing flashes of elite athleticism on the glass, his inability to stay in front of straight-line drives pulled his value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 19.1m -10.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Bogged down the half-court spacing by failing to make defenses pay for sagging off him on the perimeter. Sluggish pick-and-roll coverages allowed opposing guards to easily turn the corner, compounding his offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -57.2
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 22.0m -11.8
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
11
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Reckless drives into traffic and poor spatial awareness resulted in empty possessions that fed the opponent's momentum. Despite playing with high energy and crashing the glass hard, his chaotic decision-making in the half-court was a severe detriment.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 21.4m -11.5
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Jaden Ivey 16.9m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Injected immediate pace into the offense with lethal downhill attacks and highly efficient perimeter execution. His burst in early offense kept defenders on their heels, though occasional lapses in off-ball defensive awareness slightly muted his overall score.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 16.9m -9.1
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Bricked a series of wide-open corner looks that severely punished the team's drive-and-kick execution. He tried to compensate with high-motor closeouts and hustle plays, but the offensive dead weight ultimately dragged his impact below zero.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 16.0m -8.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 15.9m
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Faded into the background during his minutes, showing an uncharacteristic passivity that stalled the secondary unit's flow. While he competed hard on the defensive end, the lack of aggressive rim pressure made him a non-factor offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 15.9m -8.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.8

Sparked a massive momentum shift during a brief stint by pushing the tempo and making lightning-quick reads. His relentless ball pressure at the point of attack completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm in just a handful of minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 133.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 6.2m -3.3
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
18
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.8

Exceptional shot selection and decisive playmaking kept the second unit humming perfectly in the half-court. However, his overall net rating remained muted due to being targeted on switches by larger wings during defensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 79.5%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 36.3m -19.4
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Grayson Allen 30.6m
33
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.1

Incredible perimeter volume stretched the defense to its breaking point, punishing drop coverages with relentless deep triggers. While the sheer quantity of missed threes slightly capped his overall ceiling, the gravity he provided opened up the entire floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 11/25 (44.0%)
3PT 7/20 (35.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 30.6m -16.4
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Royce O'Neale 29.2m
11
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.7

While perimeter execution was solid, his overall impact plunged into the red due to poorly timed defensive rotations and costly transition fouls. The floor-spacing gravity was completely negated by giving up easy lanes to the rim during Detroit's key runs.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 29.2m -15.6
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 28.5m
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.7

Rampant shot-hunting cratered his value, as a barrage of forced, contested jumpers derailed the offensive flow. His typical defensive intensity was absent, allowing his primary assignments to consistently break the paint and generate open kick-outs.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense -3.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 28.5m -15.2
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 22.4m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Anchored the interior with elite rim deterrence, fundamentally altering the geometry of the opponent's half-court offense. Even with a sharp drop in scoring volume, his active hands in the passing lanes and relentless box-outs generated massive hidden value.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 22.4m -12.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
7
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.5

Relentless energy on the glass and elite point-of-attack pressure defined a gritty, glue-guy performance. He consistently generated extra possessions through deflections and offensive boards, though a few errant drives kept his overall impact modest.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +18.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +6.2
Defense +7.9
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 31.6m -16.8
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 25.6m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.4

Put on an absolute masterclass in pick-and-roll coverage, seamlessly hedging and recovering to suffocate ball-handlers. His flawless defensive positioning and timely weak-side rotations completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +15.0
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 25.6m -13.7
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 6
BLK 1
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 19.4m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to find a rhythm within the offensive flow, often floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention. While he provided adequate weak-side help, a lack of aggression in attacking closeouts limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 19.4m -10.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Operated strictly as a defensive specialist, using his length to disrupt passing lanes and contest late clock jumpers. The complete lack of offensive involvement prevented a higher score, but his disciplined closeouts provided a stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +40.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 13.8m -7.4
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that offered no time to establish a rhythm. A quick blown coverage in transition during his short stint resulted in an immediate negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0