GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 37.5m
30
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.2

His masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages defined his offensive value, though missed deep shots kept his net rating grounded. He drove the offense with elite playmaking and mid-range scoring, resulting in a stellar +17.1 box impact. An over-reliance on isolation plays at times prevented a true blowout margin during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 56.1%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 37.5m -22.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Ausar Thompson 32.8m
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.9

His elite point-of-attack disruption defined this masterclass, turning defensive stops into opportunistic transition scoring. He put together an absolute clinic in high-motor play (+6.5 hustle) and rim protection (+14.2 defense). This was a textbook example of dominating a game without needing plays run for him.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +6.5
Defense +14.2
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 32.8m -19.4
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 30.3m
21
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

A pattern of missed deep shots fueling opponent fast breaks defined his night, erasing the value of his elite spacing. High-volume perimeter shooting generated a massive box score impact, but defensive limitations and transition points allowed gave the value right back. He operated as a pure specialist whose defensive bleeding slightly outweighed his offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 6/15 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.1
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 30.3m -18.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Isaiah Stewart 28.8m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.3

A pattern of missed defensive rotations near the rim severely hampered his effectiveness and cratered his net impact (-12.3). Offensive invisibility compounded the issue, as his inability to finish plays or command defensive attention made him a liability. The lack of floor-stretching or interior scoring stalled the unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 28.8m -17.1
Impact -12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 12.7m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

His inability to establish deep post position against physical coverage defined his highly negative impact. A massive drop-off from his usual dominant scoring output resulted in empty possessions and broken offensive rhythm. The offense stagnated during his minutes without his typical interior gravity.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -51.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 12.7m -7.5
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

His relentless crashing of the offensive glass defined his breakout performance, turning loose balls into transition opportunities. Elite hustle (+5.6) and defensive metrics (+6.4) showcased his two-way motor, helping him break out of a severe shooting slump. This was a defining energy performance that completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.4
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 24.7m -14.7
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

His relentless screen navigation defined his defensive impact (+7.8), as he consistently blew up opposing actions. However, his offensive limitations and missed open looks stalled the offense when he touched the ball, preventing a positive net rating. He played the role of a defensive stopper perfectly, but bled value on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 18.4m -10.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Caris LeVert 16.1m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

His controlled drives into the teeth of the defense defined his stabilizing presence off the bench. He avoided forcing bad shots and kept the ball moving, which kept his box score impact positive in limited action. A solid, mistake-free shift that maintained the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 16.1m -9.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

His active hands in passing lanes defined his two-way burst, disrupting opposing guards and creating transition chances. He found his stroke after a rough stretch, hitting timely perimeter shots to punish drop coverages. A highly efficient performance that maximized his limited time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 13.9m -8.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 13.2m
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

His physical work on the offensive glass defined his highly efficient shift, anchoring the second unit's frontcourt. He continued his streak of hyper-efficient interior finishing by taking exactly what the defense gave him. Solid hustle metrics (+2.5) highlighted his low-maintenance, high-value approach.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 13.2m -7.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

A complete lack of off-ball movement defined his uncharacteristic blank slate, failing to generate any spacing or scoring threat. He completely vanished offensively in a brief stint, and the lack of hustle plays (+0.0) compounded his inability to find a rhythm. A highly unusual disappearing act for a usually reliable floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 6.0m -3.6
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Flawless execution of weak-side defensive rotations defined his brief but positive placeholder performance. He made the most of a short cameo by converting his only look and keeping the ball moving. Didn't try to play outside of his role, resulting in a clean net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 5.7m -3.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bilal Coulibaly 36.2m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.7

A pattern of forcing contested perimeter shots defined his night, cratering his net score despite heavy minutes. Wasted possessions from poor shot selection completely derailed his overall impact despite strong defensive metrics (+4.4). His point-of-attack defense was commendable, but it couldn't salvage the damage done by empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 36.2m -21.6
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Bub Carrington 21.9m
12
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

A pattern of settling for early-clock, low-percentage perimeter shots dragged his overall impact into the negative. While he managed to generate some offensive flow as a facilitator, the empty possessions from deep limited his effectiveness. A more disciplined shot profile would have easily flipped his net score.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 21.9m -13.1
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 18.0m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

His ability to find soft spots in the midrange defined his offensive bounce-back, yielding a solid positive box score contribution. However, a glaring lack of secondary hustle plays (+0.2) kept his overall net impact near neutral. His defensive positioning was sound, but he needs to pair his scoring with more physical 50/50 ball pursuit.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 18.0m -10.7
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kyshawn George 17.7m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Elite hustle metrics (+5.6) defined his minutes, as he consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort. High-energy rotations and loose-ball recoveries kept the overall impact firmly in the green despite a low-usage offensive role. He perfectly executed the assignment of an energy-boosting connector.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 17.7m -10.5
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

His disciplined shot selection against closing defenders defined his shift, keeping his efficiency streak alive. The strong box score impact (+15.6) was driven by maximizing touches without forcing bad looks. His steady two-way play provided a reliable anchor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +51.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 15.4m -9.2
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.8

A pattern of bleeding points in transition defined his stint, completely erasing the value of his scoring surge. Despite offensive fireworks well above his season average, his overall impact (-9.8) suggests significant defensive lapses or live-ball turnovers that gave value right back. He operated well as an isolation threat but struggled structurally.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 34.4m -20.4
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Anthony Gill 29.8m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

A pattern of setting hard screens and rolling into high-value shots defined his mistake-free approach. He maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing, taking only what the defense gave him within the flow of the offense. Strong hustle (+4.8) and defensive metrics highlight his fundamental value to the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 29.8m -17.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 29.4m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.5

His aggressive, high-percentage rim attacks against drop coverage defined his dominant offensive showing. He paired his scoring gravity with solid defensive rotations (+4.2) to maintain a highly positive net rating. The combination of scoring volume and pristine shot selection made him a constant threat.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 29.4m -17.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

His hesitancy to attack closeouts defined his offensive struggles, preventing him from making a positive mark. While his defensive effort and hustle metrics were respectable, the inability to generate meaningful spacing dragged down his net score. He needs to find ways to impact the game offensively when his shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 25.9m -15.5
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

His quick-trigger shooting against late closeouts defined his brief but highly efficient stint. Maximizing his minutes with lethal perimeter shooting opened up driving lanes for teammates, driving a strong box score impact. Defensive awareness ensured he wasn't targeted on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.1%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 11.2m -6.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3