GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.1m
29
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.9

Despite gaudy playmaking and scoring volume, his overall impact plummeted due to a high rate of defensive lapses and empty possessions. He orchestrated the offense well, but his inability to contain his primary matchup allowed the opponent to match him score for score. The heavy offensive burden clearly compromised his energy on the other side of the ball.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 38.1m -22.5
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 33.5m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-16.4

A brutal combination of missed mid-range jumpers and defensive apathy resulted in a staggering negative total impact. He repeatedly stalled the offense by holding the ball too long against set defenses, leading to low-quality attempts. The lack of secondary contributions meant his poor shooting night dragged down the entire lineup.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 33.5m -19.8
Impact -16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 30.9m
19
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.4

Completely overwhelmed the interior with sheer power, converting lob threats and dominating the paint to drive a massive box score impact. His rim protection deterred countless drives, forcing the opposition into tough, late-clock jumpers. This performance was defined by his relentless vertical spacing and physical intimidation.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.2
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 30.9m -18.3
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 25.4m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Lethal perimeter marksmanship stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point, driving a stellar offensive rating. However, his overall impact was heavily muted by being consistently targeted and exposed on the defensive end. The barrage of three-pointers essentially functioned as a break-even proposition against the points he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -1.8
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 25.4m -15.0
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 23.9m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Wreaked absolute havoc on the defensive end, using his elite wingspan to disrupt passing lanes and blow up perimeter actions. His offensive impact was buoyed by timely cuts and finishing through contact rather than settling for jumpers. The combination of high-level hustle and efficient interior scoring made him a massive plus.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 23.9m -14.1
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Set the physical tone for the second unit with bruising screens and immovable post defense. His willingness to battle for extra possessions routinely bailed out stagnant offensive sets. He didn't need a high volume of touches to leave a massive imprint on the game's physicality.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 23.2m -13.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Caris LeVert 20.1m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

A stark regression in scoring efficiency limited his overall effectiveness, as he struggled to create separation off the bounce. He mitigated some of the offensive damage by diving for loose balls and making high-effort rotations. Ultimately, his inability to bend the defense kept his net rating in the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 20.1m -12.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

A massive drop-off from his recent scoring tear, characterized by forced shots and poor finishing in traffic. His struggles to stay in front of quicker guards compounded his offensive woes, leading to a heavily negative total impact. The game simply looked too fast for him during this stint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.4
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 15.9m -9.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Provided a much-needed spark of athleticism, using his length to generate deflections and positive defensive metrics. He showed improved patience on offense, taking what the defense gave him rather than forcing wild drives. This disciplined, high-energy approach yielded a solid positive impact in limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 15.2m -9.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Maximized his brief time on the floor by playing strictly within his role and executing defensive assignments flawlessly. He capitalized on broken plays and transition opportunities to chip in highly efficient offense. A textbook example of a low-usage player providing steady, positive minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 13.7m -8.0
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Peyton Watson 37.8m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Elite defensive metrics and relentless energy on the margins kept him highly impactful on that end of the floor. However, a rough shooting night from the field dragged his overall net rating into the red. His ability to draw contact and get to the foul line salvaged what could have been a disastrous offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 53.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +5.6
Defense +10.3
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 37.8m -22.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
S Jamal Murray 36.9m
32
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.3

A masterclass in shot creation drove a massive box score impact, as he repeatedly punished drop coverage with pull-up jumpers. His perimeter efficiency forced the defense to overreact, opening up passing lanes that he exploited beautifully. This was a quintessential offensive takeover that dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +27.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +33.2
Avg player in 36.9m -21.9
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Nikola Jokić 32.9m
24
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.1

Controlled the geometry of the court as usual, leveraging his gravity to generate high-quality looks from deep. While his interior finishing was unusually erratic, his elite defensive positioning and rebounding ensured a strong positive impact. The three-point stroke bailed out a few stagnant half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.6
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 32.9m -19.5
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Christian Braun 25.6m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.9

A sharp drop-off in offensive aggression severely limited his effectiveness, as he passed up open looks he normally takes. Without his usual downhill driving game, his overall impact plummeted to a team-worst rating. The lack of defensive playmaking compounded his quiet night on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 25.6m -15.1
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Pickett 10.3m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Offensive production completely flatlined as he bricked every single shot attempt, tanking his net impact. He managed to scrape together minor positive contributions through hustle plays, but it wasn't nearly enough to offset the empty possessions. Opposing guards sagged off him entirely, blowing up the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 10.3m -6.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.8

Disastrous shot selection and clanked jumpers absolutely cratered his overall value. He forced heavily contested looks early in the shot clock, essentially acting as live-ball turnovers that fueled the opponent's transition game. Aside from a few minor hustle plays, his presence on the floor was a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 27.5m -16.2
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 23.4m
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient scoring by picking his spots perfectly as a cutter and transition threat. His high hustle rating reflects his constant off-ball movement and willingness to do the dirty work. He provided the exact type of connective tissue needed to keep the second unit humming.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 23.4m -13.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump by aggressively attacking closeouts and finding rhythm in the mid-range. His sudden scoring burst completely flipped the momentum of the bench minutes. Solid defensive rotations ensured his offensive explosion translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 23.4m -13.9
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Flawless execution around the rim and dominant glass-cleaning anchored a highly efficient stint. He completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt with his physicality, leading to a stellar defensive impact. Never forcing the issue, he capitalized perfectly on the touches he was given.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.7%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 21.6m -12.7
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
Zeke Nnaji 0.6m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely saw the floor during a brief cameo appearance at the end of a quarter. A quick defensive breakdown during his lone possession resulted in a slightly negative grade. There simply wasn't enough court time to generate any meaningful impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 0.6m -0.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0