GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 37.9m
12
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
-16.3

A disastrous -16.3 total impact stems from erratic shot selection and a complete inability to connect from beyond the arc. While he managed to facilitate for others and put up decent defensive resistance (+4.1), empty scoring trips and likely live-ball turnovers destroyed his team's momentum. He struggled to dictate the pace against aggressive pick-and-roll coverages.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.1
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 37.9m -19.3
Impact -16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S Jalen Duren 26.3m
18
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Continued his dominant streak of interior finishing by overwhelming smaller defenders in the post and converting through contact. His physical presence anchored the defense (+6.3), deterring drives and securing the defensive glass to limit second-chance points. The combination of reliable paint scoring and rim protection yielded a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.3
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 26.3m -13.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 26.1m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

When the perimeter shot isn't falling, his overall value plummets, evidenced by a staggering -12.2 net impact. Opponents aggressively chased him off the line, forcing him into contested, low-percentage looks that fueled transition opportunities the other way. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, the offensive flow stagnated during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 26.1m -13.3
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 25.5m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

A severe lack of offensive rhythm completely derailed his impact, as he forced contested jumpers and failed to convert from deep. Even though he provided solid weak-side help and rebounding effort (+3.8 hustle), the empty offensive possessions were too costly. The inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 25.5m -13.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 23.6m
12
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

Tremendous off-ball cutting and transition finishing sparked a highly efficient offensive showing that far exceeded his recent averages. His phenomenal motor translated into a +6.1 hustle score, generating crucial second-chance opportunities and deflections. This two-way activity made him a massive net positive whenever he stepped on the court.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +6.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 23.6m -12.0
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Punished mismatches in the paint with ruthless efficiency, converting almost all of his interior attempts to drive a massive +17.7 box score impact. He abandoned the struggling perimeter shot in favor of hard screens and decisive rolls to the basket. This physical, no-nonsense approach to generating offense stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 25.4m -12.9
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Broke out of a recent slump by attacking closeouts with purpose and finishing efficiently at the rim. His defensive intensity was the real story (+7.8), as he consistently blew up dribble hand-offs and navigated screens to smother perimeter assignments. This two-way breakout provided a massive injection of energy and functional athleticism.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 25.1m -12.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Settled for too many contested jumpers early in the shot clock, dragging down his offensive efficiency and stalling the team's momentum. He managed to salvage a neutral overall impact through active on-ball defense (+3.1) and decent facilitation. Still, the drop-off in his usual scoring punch left the second unit searching for answers.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +25.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 19.4m -9.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Completely vanished on the offensive end, failing to make decisive cuts or capitalize on the few touches he received. His typically reliable defensive energy was muted, resulting in a damaging -6.7 overall impact during his rotation minutes. Opponents freely ignored him in the half-court, severely cramping the floor for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +38.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 16.8m -8.5
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 13.9m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Flashes of perimeter shot-making weren't enough to overcome a generally passive stint on the floor. A lack of defensive engagement and minimal hustle (+0.2) allowed opponents to exploit his matchups on the perimeter. The scoring efficiency was acceptable, but he failed to leave a footprint on the game's broader flow.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 13.9m -7.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 40.7m
32
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.7

Elite shot creation fueled a massive +27.1 box score impact, as he consistently punished defensive rotations from the perimeter. His scoring gravity opened up the floor, while steady defensive positioning (+3.3) ensured his offensive outbursts translated directly to winning basketball. The veteran continues a dominant stretch of high-efficiency isolation play.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.7m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +33.5
Avg player in 40.7m -20.8
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Amen Thompson 39.6m
15
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.6

Relentless point-of-attack defense (+8.6) set the tone, constantly disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation. He paired this disruptive energy with downhill attacking, collapsing the paint to generate high-quality looks for teammates. Maintaining his recent streak of efficient finishing at the rim solidified a strong two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 39.6m -20.2
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.2

Despite a dip in his usual scoring volume, his overall impact remained solidly positive due to relentless activity on the glass and in the passing lanes. A stellar +7.8 defensive score highlights his ability to anchor the weak side and contest shots at the rim. He found ways to influence the game through sheer effort (+5.8 hustle) rather than forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.8
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 37.0m -18.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Josh Okogie 34.8m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

A severely negative overall impact (-8.4) completely overshadowed his improved offensive output. Defensive lapses in transition and costly fouls likely bled away the value of his occasional scoring bursts. He struggled to maintain floor balance, allowing opponents to capitalize on disorganized defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 34.8m -17.7
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 30.4m
19
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.5

Operating as the offensive hub, he maintained his highly efficient interior finishing streak by meticulously picking apart double teams. His value was further amplified by excellent positional defense (+7.2) and active hands in the paint. The combination of high-IQ passing and physical screening kept the half-court offense humming.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 30.4m -15.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
18
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

A brutal shooting night from beyond the arc cratered his offensive efficiency and allowed defenders to cheat under screens. While he managed to generate decent box score value through sheer volume, the wasted possessions ultimately resulted in a negative net impact. He failed to adapt his shot selection when the perimeter looks weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 25.2m -12.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Clint Capela 16.5m
5
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.4

Maximized a short stint on the floor by dominating the restricted area and altering shots at the rim to generate a +5.3 defensive impact. His vertical spacing and hard rolls to the basket forced defensive rotations, opening up the perimeter. A sharp uptick in offensive involvement capitalized on mismatches in the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 16.5m -8.4
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Elite hustle metrics (+6.7) reflect his willingness to dive for loose balls and battle for extra possessions in limited minutes. However, poor shot selection and an inability to convert in the paint dragged his overall impact into the red. His offensive limitations allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 15.9m -8.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3