GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 26.1m
18
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
+18.8

Masterful orchestration out of the pick-and-roll systematically dismantled the opposing coverage, generating high-quality looks on nearly every possession. He paired this offensive clinic with exceptional point-of-attack defense, using his size to swallow up smaller guards. A flawless third-quarter stretch of consecutive defensive stops and immediate transition assists blew the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +63.1
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +13.2
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 26.1m -11.7
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 4
BLK 3
TO 2
S Ausar Thompson 24.9m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.4

Absolute dominance as a weak-side rim protector and passing lane menace drove a spectacular defensive rating. He capitalized on broken plays with explosive vertical finishing, punishing the defense for ignoring him in the dunker spot. His ability to completely erase the opposing wings in isolation was the defining catalyst for Detroit's success.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +80.9
+/- +43
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +11.2
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 24.9m -11.2
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 24.1m
21
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.4

Overpowering physicality in the painted area generated a massive positive swing, as he completely bullied opposing bigs for deep position. He paired his elite interior finishing with disciplined verticality on defense, walling off the rim without drawing whistles. Continuing a dominant streak, his rim-running in early offense constantly broke the opponent's transition shell.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +84.9
+/- +42
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.3
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 24.1m -10.8
Impact +21.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Duncan Robinson 21.8m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Surprising defensive discipline navigating off-ball screens helped keep his overall impact in the black despite a muted shooting night. Opponents aggressively face-guarded him, which limited his touches but successfully warped the defensive shell to create driving lanes for teammates. His persistent relocation gravity remained a valuable offensive tool even when the shots weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +89.9
+/- +41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 21.8m -9.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 19.8m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

Veteran poise and surgical shot selection maximized his value, as he refused to force action against set defenses. He provided tremendous secondary rim protection, rotating crisply to alter shots without fouling. A crucial stretch of timely weak-side helps in the second quarter perfectly encapsulated his stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +76.7
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 19.8m -8.7
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Bruising screens and physical box-outs did the dirty work necessary to keep the offensive engine humming. He anchored the second-unit defense with loud communication and hard hedges that disrupted the opponent's primary actions. While not flashy, his willingness to absorb contact in the paint prevented multiple easy layups.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 21.0m -9.4
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 20.6m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Reckless drives into heavily populated paint areas resulted in empty possessions and stunted the team's half-court momentum. Although he flashed active hands on defense to generate deflections, his erratic offensive decision-making gave the momentum right back. Settling for early-clock, contested threes ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +18.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 20.6m -9.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

A complete lack of perimeter touch allowed defenders to pack the paint, severely compromising the team's offensive spacing. He tried to compensate with high-energy closeouts and weak-side rotations, but the missed jumpers were too costly to overcome. Continuing a brutal shooting slump, his inability to punish sagging defenders stalled multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +43.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 19.9m -8.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.6

Decisive downhill attacking and pristine shot selection maximized his minutes and punished a rotating defense. He consistently beat his primary defender off the bounce, collapsing the lane and finishing through contact. This relentless rim pressure was the defining spark that kept the second unit's offense completely on schedule.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 19.6m -8.9
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Flawless execution on spot-up opportunities maximized his limited touches, punishing defenders who helped off him. However, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to getting caught on screens and surrendering open driving lanes. Despite the perfect shooting clip, his inability to contain dribble penetration during a crucial second-half stretch proved costly.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +44.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 19.0m -8.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.1

Snapping out of a recent funk, he provided a massive two-way spark fueled by relentless ball pressure and sharp offensive reads. He hounded opposing ball-handlers into rushed decisions, directly translating defensive havoc into easy transition buckets. His crisp navigation of high pick-and-rolls completely changed the tempo during his highly impactful rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 14.8m -6.7
Impact +13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 8.4m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Operating strictly within his role, he provided immediate stability through rugged screen-setting and disciplined rim protection. He avoided forcing the issue offensively, capitalizing entirely on dump-offs and high-percentage interior looks. A quick burst of contested rebounds in traffic highlighted a highly efficient, albeit brief, stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 8.4m -3.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Danny Wolf 28.6m
6
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.1

Brick after brick from the perimeter completely cratered his offensive value, as opponents eagerly dared him to shoot from deep. While he salvaged some utility with active rim rotations and solid defensive positioning, the empty possessions piled up too quickly. His insistence on forcing contested above-the-break threes ultimately derailed the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -76.6
+/- -43
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 28.6m -12.9
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Terance Mann 20.4m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Extreme passivity on offense allowed defenders to heavily sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Despite avoiding major mistakes, an inability to generate rim pressure or space the floor rendered this stint a liability during Brooklyn's offensive sets. A glaring lack of shot attempts defined a highly invisible performance that dragged down the lineup's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -77.5
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 20.4m -9.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 17.4m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Consistent rim-running and high-percentage looks in the paint buoyed his overall impact metric. He anchored the drop coverage effectively against pick-and-rolls, though a lack of elite rebounding limited his ceiling in this matchup. A steady diet of uncontested lobs kept his efficiency squarely in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -84.7
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 17.4m -7.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nolan Traore 17.2m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.8

Forcing contested midrange pull-ups tanked his efficiency and disrupted the team's offensive flow. A stark inability to beat his primary defender off the dribble led to stagnant, late-clock bailouts. His continuing slump was magnified by poor transition defense that bled points the other way.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 17.2m -7.6
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Egor Dëmin 14.6m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Blanking completely from beyond the arc severely damaged his floor-spacing gravity and stalled half-court momentum. He struggled to create separation against physical perimeter defenders, settling for rushed jumpers late in the shot clock. This perimeter futility directly fueled an extended opponent scoring run during his brief rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -64.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 14.6m -6.6
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drake Powell 32.1m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and timely weak-side closeouts defined a highly disruptive two-way performance. He generated massive value by extending possessions through sheer effort, compensating for a relatively low-volume shooting night. Breaking out of a recent slump, his off-ball cutting constantly punished sleeping defenders.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 32.1m -14.5
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jalen Wilson 27.4m
8
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.1

Errant spot-up attempts and a glaring inability to finish at the rim severely handicapped the offensive spacing. While he brought commendable intensity to the offensive glass, blown defensive assignments on the perimeter proved costly. Consistently biting on pump fakes allowed straight-line drives that collapsed the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.4
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 27.4m -12.3
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Thomas 23.1m
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Tunnel vision in isolation sets bogged down the offensive rhythm, negating the value of his perimeter shot-making. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, exposing his slow lateral slides and poor screen navigation. The scoring punch simply could not outpace the defensive bleeding he caused during the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -32.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 23.1m -10.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Strong interior deterrence and active hands in the passing lanes highlighted a robust defensive shift. However, his overall impact was dragged down by clunky offensive execution and a failure to finish through contact around the basket. Getting repeatedly stripped on offensive put-back attempts erased multiple second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 22.2m -10.0
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Ben Saraf 18.8m
4
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.6

Smothering point-of-attack defense and excellent screen navigation kept his overall impact from completely cratering despite a nightmare shooting performance. He failed to convert a single field goal, repeatedly rushing floaters in traffic. Ultimately, his offensive zeroes neutralized the phenomenal perimeter clamps he applied to the opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 26.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -49.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 18.8m -8.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Capitalizing on brief rotation minutes, he showcased decisive decision-making and capitalized on defensive miscommunications. He managed to avoid the costly fouls that have plagued his recent outings, providing a stable frontcourt presence. A quick pair of successful reads out of the short roll highlighted a surprisingly effective cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -69.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 9.7m -4.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.2

A completely invisible offensive shift was punctuated by forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that triggered immediate transition opportunities for the opponent. He failed to register any meaningful hustle metrics, floating aimlessly on the perimeter. Being a step slow on closeouts compounded the damage during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -56.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense -3.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 8.4m -3.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1