Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead IND lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
IND 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 172 attempts

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Thompson Hard 3/13 -6.7
Walker Hard 4/12 -2.0
Jackson Hard 3/10 -3.2
Jones Hard 1/10 -7.8
Jackson Open 5/7 +2.0
Bradley 5/6 +4.2
Furphy 2/6 -1.2
Peter Hard 2/6 -1.3
Sheppard Hard 2/3 +2.0
Huff Hard 1/3 +0.1

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 6/14 -0.3
Duren 6/12 -1.2
LeVert 4/10 -2.5
Green 6/9 +6.0
Robinson 6/9 +5.9
Sasser Hard 3/7 +0.1
Stewart 3/7 -1.4
Ivey Hard 2/7 -1.7
Holland II 3/7 -1.8
Harris 3/5 +2.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
DET
28/79 Field Goals 46/93
35.4% Field Goal % 49.5%
8/35 3-Pointers 16/34
22.9% 3-Point % 47.1%
14/27 Free Throws 13/19
51.9% Free Throw % 68.4%
42.9% True Shooting % 59.7%
55 Total Rebounds 63
6 Offensive 7
36 Defensive 44
18 Assists 32
0.72 Assist/TO Ratio 1.68
24 Turnovers 19
13 Steals 15
2 Blocks 6
18 Fouls 26
40 Points in Paint 54
21 Fast Break Pts 20
9 Points off TOs 34
6 Second Chance Pts 13
41 Bench Points 60
0 Largest Lead 46
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Javonte Green
16 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 19.6 MIN
+16.67
2
Duncan Robinson
16 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 22.2 MIN
+12.37
3
Jalen Duren
15 PTS · 8 REB · 4 AST · 22.9 MIN
+11.76
4
Ronald Holland II
7 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 24.4 MIN
+10.3
5
Tony Bradley
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 17.7 MIN
+10.27
6
Ausar Thompson
7 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 15.7 MIN
+9.88
7
Daniss Jenkins
3 PTS · 1 REB · 4 AST · 12.0 MIN
+8.48
8
Ben Sheppard
8 PTS · 0 REB · 0 AST · 13.7 MIN
+7.58
9
Taelon Peter
5 PTS · 4 REB · 2 AST · 16.7 MIN
+7.15
10
Cade Cunningham
16 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 21.2 MIN
+6.89
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 J. Green REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 78–121
Q4 0:00 MISS T. Peter 3PT 78–121
Q4 0:13 T. Peter STEAL (3 STL) 78–121
Q4 0:13 D. Jenkins bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 78–121
Q4 0:35 P. Reed REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 78–121
Q4 0:38 MISS T. Peter 26' pullup 3PT 78–121
Q4 0:45 M. Sasser 25' 3PT step back (9 PTS) 78–121
Q4 1:05 J. Green REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 78–118
Q4 1:11 MISS E. Thompson 26' step back 3PT 78–118
Q4 1:22 M. Sasser 3PT running (6 PTS) (D. Jenkins 4 AST) 78–118
Q4 1:26 D. Jenkins STEAL (3 STL) 78–115
Q4 1:26 M. Potter lost ball TURNOVER (2 TO) 78–115
Q4 1:36 E. Thompson REBOUND (Off:1 Def:4) 78–115
Q4 1:40 MISS D. Jenkins 14' pullup Shot 78–115
Q4 1:51 K. Jones 8' driving floating Jump Shot (2 PTS) 78–115

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

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 22.9m
15
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.2

Dominated the interior to drive a massive box score premium, even with a lighter scoring load than usual. Extending his streak of highly efficient shooting nights, his sheer physical presence in the paint dictated the opponent's defensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +9.2
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 22.2m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.1

Lethal perimeter marksmanship stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point, resulting in a towering box score rating. The constant threat of his off-ball movement created driving lanes for teammates all night long.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +78.4
+/- +40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cade Cunningham 21.2m
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.6

Shouldered a heavy creation burden, which yielded a strong base box score but suffered from middling shot efficiency. Slight lapses in perimeter containment ultimately capped his overall ceiling in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +60.8
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 17.8m
7
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.0

A surprisingly passive offensive approach halved his usual scoring output, though he remained highly efficient when he did attack. Strong weak-side defensive rotations ultimately kept his net impact positive despite the lack of typical volume.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +61.2
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 15.7m
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Wreaked havoc off the ball, using elite anticipation to generate massive defensive and hustle premiums. By strictly limiting his offensive touches to high-percentage looks, he maximized his two-way value without demanding usage.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +78.4
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.4

Snapped out of a recent shooting slump by finding better angles to the rim instead of forcing contested jumpers. Coupling that improved shot quality with aggressive on-ball defense resulted in a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 21.1m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Struggled to find any rhythm off the bounce, leading to empty possessions and a heavily depressed overall grade. The inability to break down his primary defender consistently stalled the half-court offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.3

Physicality in the frontcourt anchored a stellar defensive rating that carried his overall impact. Even with a slightly erratic offensive touch, his ability to seal off driving lanes proved indispensable.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Caris LeVert 20.1m
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

A complete inability to connect from beyond the arc neutralized his otherwise solid defensive contributions. Wasted perimeter possessions ultimately dragged his net impact down to a perfectly flat zero.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +5.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
16
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+13.9

An unexpected scoring explosion completely tilted the game's momentum, nearly doubling his usual offensive output. Blistering perimeter efficiency combined with timely cuts to generate a massive, game-changing impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Provided a much-needed scoring punch off the bench, significantly outperforming his recent baseline. While not dominant, his willingness to take open rhythm shots kept the second-unit offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +5.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Completely abandoned his usual high-volume scoring role to operate as a lockdown defensive specialist. This drastic shift in playstyle paid off immensely, as his point-of-attack pressure suffocated the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Paul Reed 10.4m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Starved for touches compared to his usual workload, but maintained his streak of perfect efficiency when called upon. His value was entirely driven by sturdy interior defense in a highly specialized, low-usage role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 26.4m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

A sudden regression in shot selection broke a four-game streak of elite efficiency, resulting in a clunky offensive outing. While his defensive rotations remained solid, the sheer volume of bricked jumpers heavily depressed his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Johnny Furphy 24.4m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Offensive struggles completely tanked his overall impact despite a highly disruptive defensive shift. A lack of scoring punch and wasted possessions dragged down his value, even though his perimeter containment remained a bright spot.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -58.4
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Quenton Jackson 20.4m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

Forcing contested looks shattered his recent streak of highly efficient scoring nights. The resulting empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent severely damaged his net impact, overshadowing decent effort on the glass.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -63.5
+/- -33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ben Sheppard 13.7m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Maximized a brief rotation stint by taking only high-value shots and maintaining strict defensive discipline. This low-usage, high-efficiency pattern provided a stabilizing presence for the bench unit without requiring the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -74.2
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jay Huff 13.3m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

A stark departure from his recent double-digit scoring average left a massive void in the second unit's production. Without his usual interior finishing to anchor the offense, his slight defensive lapses became much more costly to the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -49.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 33.3m
2
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.7

Completely vanished as a scoring threat, failing to register a single field goal in heavy minutes. While his positional defense and rim deterrence were actually quite strong, the total lack of offensive gravity allowed the defense to trap elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kam Jones 28.8m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

An absolute deep-freeze from the floor dictated this disastrous overall rating. Continually settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint derailed the offensive flow and handed momentum straight to the defense.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 9.2%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring -5.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Shot selection was the primary culprit behind a heavily negative rating, as he repeatedly forced looks from beyond the arc. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition pushes, nullifying his otherwise acceptable defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +5.4
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tony Bradley 17.7m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Capitalized on nearly every touch around the basket to drive a highly positive box score impact. Operating strictly within his physical limitations, this disciplined approach to finishing ensured maximum value per possession.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -25.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Taelon Peter 16.7m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Smothering point-of-attack defense completely salvaged an otherwise clunky shooting night. His ability to blow up screening actions and disrupt passing lanes created enough hidden value to keep his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Scoring +1.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Relentless energy around the rim generated massive hustle metrics that anchored his stellar overall grade. He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing, punishing defensive rotations with decisive cuts and putbacks.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2