GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 34.8m
16
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
-5.9

A catastrophic shooting performance completely tanked his net rating despite elite defensive and hustle metrics. He forced the issue repeatedly against set defenses, bleeding value through wasted possessions and highly questionable shot selection.

Shooting
FG 5/26 (19.2%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +8.5
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 34.8m -18.6
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 29.9m
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

A severe lack of scoring punch and bricked mid-range jumpers caused his overall impact to plummet. While he tried to compensate with solid defensive positioning, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions proved far too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 29.9m -16.0
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 29.3m
25
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+22.2

Utter dominance in the paint drove a massive positive score, extending a streak of elite offensive efficiency. He completely overwhelmed his matchups with relentless rim-running and putbacks, generating huge value across all hustle and box metrics.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +26.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.9
Raw total +37.9
Avg player in 29.3m -15.7
Impact +22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 26.7m
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

High-volume misfires from beyond the arc suppressed his overall impact despite decent hustle numbers. The defense respected his perimeter gravity, but clanking wide-open catch-and-shoot looks ultimately stalled out several crucial offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.7
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 26.7m -14.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ausar Thompson 17.7m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Highly efficient interior finishing was ultimately undone by hidden off-ball costs and a lack of defensive disruption. Despite converting his looks around the rim, his overall shifts bled points due to poor weak-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 17.7m -9.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.0

A massive surge in aggressive transition play drove a highly positive impact, easily masking his perimeter shooting woes. He weaponized his raw athleticism to generate defensive stops and turn them into immediate fast-break value.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.4
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 26.3m -14.0
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

A sharp drop in scoring efficiency and noticeable defensive lapses dragged his impact deep into the red. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, compounding the damage from his forced, contested looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 21.4m -11.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 21.1m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

A glaring lack of offensive assertiveness and poor spacing drastically hurt his net score. He deferred too often on the perimeter, allowing the defense to clog the driving lanes and disrupt the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 21.1m -11.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Paul Reed 19.8m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.7

Excellent two-way energy and highly efficient interior finishing fueled a strong positive showing. His relentless motor on the glass and switchability on defense perfectly complemented the primary rotation.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 19.8m -10.5
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

A completely scoreless outing defined by bricked perimeter looks severely cratered his overall value. His inability to convert wide-open corner threes made him an offensive liability that his marginal defensive effort couldn't fix.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 13.0m -6.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Despite highly efficient catch-and-shoot execution from the perimeter, his overall impact slipped into the red. Strong hustle metrics couldn't fully mask the hidden costs of defensive breakdowns during his extended shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 36.4m -19.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Devin Vassell 36.3m
28
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.8

Elite perimeter shot-making drove a massive positive impact, shattering his recent offensive baselines. He hunted high-value looks from deep, punishing defensive rotations with hyper-efficient volume.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.1%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 36.3m -19.4
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
21
pts
17
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.8

Defensive anchoring and immense interior gravity drove a stellar impact score despite a noticeable dip in his usual scoring efficiency. His sheer size completely disrupted opponent driving lanes, generating massive defensive value that easily offset the clanked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +8.7
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 35.6m -19.1
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 1
BLK 6
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 33.4m
10
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-11.2

An ice-cold shooting stretch from the perimeter completely cratered his overall impact. While he remained engaged defensively, the sheer volume of forced, missed jumpers stalled out the offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.7%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 33.4m -17.7
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Stephon Castle 30.1m
16
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-level orchestration and solid point-of-attack defense were nearly neutralized by inefficient finishing inside the arc. His ability to dictate the offensive flow kept his hustle metrics high, but empty possessions in traffic dragged his net rating to neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 30.1m -16.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

A sharp drop from his usual scoring output was salvaged by physical defensive effort and timely rotations. Poor shot selection from deep limited his ceiling, but he avoided catastrophic mistakes to keep his head barely above water.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 22.1m -11.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dylan Harper 17.9m
5
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

A sudden regression in finishing efficiency snapped a hot streak and dragged his overall impact into the negative. He struggled to adjust to the physicality of his perimeter matchups, leading to forced looks that derailed offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 17.9m -9.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Passive offensive involvement and missed spot-up opportunities resulted in a noticeably negative net score. His inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to sag off, shrinking the floor for the rest of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 15.5m -8.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

This brief but effective stint was defined by vertical spacing and strict positional discipline. He didn't see his usual finishing opportunities, but his sturdy screen-setting and rim deterrence kept the second unit functioning smoothly.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 8.7m -4.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

This brief cameo was highlighted by capitalizing on his lone perimeter look. However, minor defensive lapses in transition prevented him from posting a positive net rating during the short run.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 4.0m -2.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1