GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 22.9m
15
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.5

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
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 22.9m -9.9
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
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
+7.4

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
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 22.2m -9.6
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
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
+1.6

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
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 21.2m -9.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
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
+1.5

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
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 17.8m -7.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
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
+8.6

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
Offense +4.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 15.7m -6.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
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
+3.7

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
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 24.4m -10.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
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
-7.0

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
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 21.1m -9.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
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
+3.3

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
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 20.6m -8.8
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
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
-0.1

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
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 20.1m -8.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
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
+10.6

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
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 19.6m -8.5
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
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
+0.3

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
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 12.0m -5.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
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
+6.7

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
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +8.1
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 12.0m -5.1
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
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
+1.5

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
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 10.4m -4.4
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
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
-5.7

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
Offense -2.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 26.4m -11.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
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
-10.4

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
Offense -10.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.0
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 24.4m -10.5
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
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
-10.2

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
Offense -6.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 20.4m -8.8
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
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
+3.4

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
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 13.7m -6.0
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
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
-2.6

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
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 13.3m -5.8
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
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
-7.0

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
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 33.3m -14.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
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
-13.0

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
Offense -6.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 28.8m -12.5
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
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
-10.0

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
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 28.5m -12.3
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
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
+4.1

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
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 17.7m -7.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
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
+3.6

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
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.7
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 16.7m -7.3
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
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
+7.7

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
Offense +7.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 16.6m -7.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2