GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 41.7m
33
pts
16
reb
3
ast
Impact
+29.5

Utterly dismantled the opposing frontline through sheer brute force, establishing deep post position and converting through heavy contact. His monstrous defensive presence (+14.1 Def) effectively walled off the paint, forcing opponents into low-percentage mid-range bailouts. Controlled the glass with relentless physicality to generate a staggering +29.5 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 11/15 (73.3%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.7m
Offense +33.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +14.1
Raw total +53.8
Avg player in 41.7m -24.3
Impact +29.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 37.0m
11
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.4

Overcame a clunky, inefficient shooting night by transforming into an absolute menace on the less glamorous end of the floor (+17.6 Def). His flawless weak-side rotations and timely closeouts completely derailed the opponent's offensive flow. Sacrificed his own scoring rhythm to lock down primary defensive assignments.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +17.6
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 37.0m -21.5
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 6
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cade Cunningham 36.6m
25
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.3

Carried a heavy offensive burden with steady mid-range execution, but likely gave value back through costly live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. The lack of three-point efficiency allowed drop defenders to pack the paint, slightly dragging his overall net impact into the negative (-1.3). Struggled to maintain advantage creation late in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 36.6m -21.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ausar Thompson 35.5m
18
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.1

Wreaked havoc as a baseline cutter, consistently punishing ball-watching defenders with perfectly timed slashes to the rim. His elite athleticism translated into disruptive perimeter defense (+6.2 Def), suffocating opposing wings and sparking transition breaks. A massive scoring surge above his baseline fueled a highly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.2
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 35.5m -20.7
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 34.0m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.2

Hemorrhaged value (-12.2 Total) due to a frigid shooting night that allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes. Without his usual gravitational pull on the perimeter, the half-court offense stagnated significantly. Hustle plays couldn't compensate for the spacing issues caused by his missed catch-and-shoot looks.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +9.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 34.0m -19.9
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Tanked his overall impact (-8.0 Total) through a disastrous shot selection profile, repeatedly forcing contested floaters early in the shot clock. The resulting empty possessions handed the opponent immediate transition opportunities. Unable to find his rhythm, his offensive inefficiency severely handicapped the secondary rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 19.2m -11.2
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 16.6m
1
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, exhibiting a stark reluctance to challenge his primary defender off the bounce. This extreme passivity stalled out multiple bench possessions, driving a steep negative impact (-6.6 Total) despite decent effort on the defensive end. Failed to generate any rim pressure to collapse the defense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 16.6m -9.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Provided a massive, hyper-efficient scoring jolt off the bench by decisively attacking closeouts and knocking down spot-up threes. However, his overall impact was muted (+1.4 Total) by defensive miscommunications that surrendered easy backdoor cuts. The offensive fireworks barely offset his struggles navigating off-ball screens.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 15.0m -8.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Suffered a catastrophic offensive shift, failing to register a single point while stalling the offense with hesitant decision-making. His inability to beat his man off the dribble allowed the defense to aggressively jump passing lanes, directly resulting in a brutal -9.8 overall impact. The lack of scoring gravity completely neutralized his floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense -5.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 11.4m -6.7
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Paul Reed 11.3m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Maximized his brief stint on the floor by setting bone-crushing screens and executing flawless dribble hand-offs to free up shooters. Despite a sharp drop in his own scoring volume, his positional discipline and rim-running gravity opened up the floor for the second unit. A textbook example of low-usage, high-efficiency role playing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 11.3m -6.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Pressed too hard during a very brief cameo, rushing perimeter attempts instead of letting the offense flow naturally. While he managed a few solid defensive rotations (+2.9 Def), the erratic offensive execution kept his net impact hovering just below neutral. Couldn't establish a rhythm within the constraints of a short leash.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 6.7m -3.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Jaylon Tyson 40.7m
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Despite knocking down perimeter looks efficiently, his overall impact cratered (-8.8) due to off-ball defensive lapses that bled points. The scoring efficiency masked how often he was targeted in pick-and-roll switches during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.7m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 40.7m -23.7
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-20.8

Offensive value plummeted (-20.8 Total) due to a barrage of forced, contested drives that ended in empty possessions. While his point-of-attack pressure yielded solid defensive metrics, the sheer volume of clanked floaters killed the team's half-court rhythm. Faltering shot selection completely neutralized his playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.8%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.8m
Offense -6.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 37.8m -22.1
Impact -20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 8
S Evan Mobley 37.0m
23
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.1

Anchored the interior with elite rim deterrence (+8.2 Def) while surprisingly punishing drop coverage from the perimeter. His willingness to confidently take and make trail threes completely warped the opposing defensive shell. Sustained a hot streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the basket.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense +8.2
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 37.0m -21.6
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 42.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Sam Merrill 36.3m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Provided a significant scoring punch above his usual baseline, heavily relying on off-screen movement to hunt perimeter shots. However, his overall impact flatlined (-0.4) as the defensive attention he drew didn't translate into enough high-leverage stops on the other end. The heavy volume of contested jumpers yielded diminishing returns late in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +6.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 36.3m -21.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 31.5m
25
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.4

Dominated the painted area by converting nearly every lob and dump-off pass into high-value points. His vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse inward, driving a massive +27.0 box score impact. Consistent rim-running generated easy transition buckets before the defense could even set.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +27.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 31.5m -18.3
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
-3.6

Operated as a brilliant connective passer, yet his reluctance to score allowed defenders to aggressively sag into the passing lanes. The resulting lack of gravity tanked his offensive impact despite stellar point-of-attack defensive metrics (+10.6 Def). Opponents simply dared him to shoot, stalling out multiple offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +10.6
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 32.4m -18.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
4
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Faded into the background offensively, failing to assert himself or create advantages off the dribble. His passivity allowed the opposing second unit to dictate the tempo, resulting in a noticeable negative swing (-5.3) during his shifts. Lacked the necessary aggression to punish closeouts.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +25.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 18.9m -11.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Injected immediate energy into the frontcourt rotation by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass for second-chance opportunities. Even with a few forced hooks in the post, his sheer physicality overwhelmed backup bigs and drove a positive overall impact (+4.0). Capitalized perfectly on deep post positioning.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 37.8%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 15.7m -9.2
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to find any offensive rhythm during his limited rotation minutes, rushing shots against set defenses. He managed to salvage some value through active weak-side help rotations (+3.3 Def), but the missed bunnies at the rim dragged his overall net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 14.7m -8.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0