GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 35.5m
11
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.7

Facilitating the offense came at a steep cost, as telegraphed passes and live-ball turnovers fueled opponent fast breaks. While he generated decent defensive metrics, his inability to create his own shot against drop coverage bogged down the half-court offense. The playmaking volume simply couldn't cover up the negative swing caused by his mistakes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 35.5m -18.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 33.8m
18
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

A steady diet of mid-range isolation success and aggressive offensive rebounding kept the scoreboard ticking. Unfortunately, sluggish transition defense and late closeouts mitigated his offensive surge. He bullied his primary defender in the post but struggled to navigate screens on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 33.8m -18.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 31.6m
17
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.7

A brutal night finishing through contact snapped his streak of hyper-efficient shooting performances. He salvaged his overall impact by transforming into a brick wall defensively, deterring everything at the rim for a massive +12.1 defensive rating. The sheer volume of altered shots completely neutralized his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +12.1
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 31.6m -17.0
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Marcus Sasser 28.6m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.5

Struggled mightily to finish inside the arc, often forcing wild floaters into heavy traffic. He redeemed his offensive inefficiency by turning up the point-of-attack pressure, hounding ball-handlers to the tune of an elite +11.3 defensive rating. His peskiness navigating screens blew up multiple opponent sets down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +11.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 28.6m -15.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Duncan Robinson 23.3m
15
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Blistering perimeter efficiency forced the defense into constant panic rotations, driving a massive offensive box score rating. However, being consistently targeted on the other end of the floor erased nearly all of that value. His inability to stay in front of straight-line drives left the rim completely exposed.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 92.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.7
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 23.3m -12.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Exemplified perfect shot selection by only taking what the defense gave him, resulting in a flawless shooting line. His physical post defense and timely weak-side rotations anchored the frontcourt during critical stretches. He didn't force any action, acting as a highly effective connective piece on both ends.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 20.2m -10.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Reckless drives into the teeth of the defense resulted in empty possessions and easy transition opportunities going the other way. He consistently lost his man on back-cuts, leading to a negative defensive rating that compounded his offensive woes. The game flow completely bypassed him whenever he was forced to play in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 18.5m -9.8
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A lack of touch around the rim ruined several well-timed baseline cuts, stalling the offensive momentum. While he brought his usual chaotic energy and defensive disruption, the missed gimmes ultimately tipped his overall impact into the negative. He played hard, but the lack of offensive polish was glaring.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 17.7m -9.5
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 16.0m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Settled for contested, late-clock jumpers that dragged down the efficiency of the second unit. He managed to stay in the green overall by utilizing his length in the passing lanes, generating deflections and a strong +6.0 defensive mark. It was a gritty, defense-first performance that masked a rusty shooting stroke.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 16.0m -8.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

An uncharacteristically cold night from beyond the arc limited his usual floor-stretching gravity. Surprisingly, he made up for the offensive dip with disciplined positional defense and smart closeouts, earning a +5.1 defensive rating. He proved he could still positively impact the game even when his primary weapon was misfiring.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 14.8m -7.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
30
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.4

High-volume shooting drove his overall impact, though an icy perimeter stroke capped his offensive ceiling. He compensated for the clanked jumpers by crashing the glass relentlessly and anchoring the team defensively with a stellar +9.7 rating. The sheer gravity he provided on the wing opened up driving lanes for teammates all night.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.4%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +9.7
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 39.3m -20.9
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Noah Clowney 30.8m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

An aggressive offensive approach yielded a massive scoring spike, but poor shot selection cratered his overall impact. Forcing looks from the perimeter led to empty possessions that allowed the opponent to dictate the transition pace. His modest defensive contributions couldn't overcome the inefficiency on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 30.8m -16.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Terance Mann 29.4m
7
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Perimeter hesitation and clanked outside looks severely limited his floor-spacing value. While he found minor success attacking closeouts, a lack of defensive disruption left him as a net negative on the floor. The inability to contain his primary matchup allowed the opposition to hunt him in pick-and-roll sequences.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 29.4m -15.7
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Nic Claxton 28.5m
2
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.3

A severe drop-off in scoring aggression and finishing around the rim nearly tanked his value. However, elite rim protection and switchability salvaged his night, highlighted by a dominant +10.3 defensive rating. He essentially traded his usual offensive role for pure dirty work and paint deterrence.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +5.2
Defense +10.3
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 28.5m -15.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Nolan Traore 15.4m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.0

A brutal offensive stint defined by forced drives and missed layups completely derailed the second-unit offense. He struggled to process defensive rotations, leading to stagnant possessions and a disastrous -13.0 overall impact. The game simply looked too fast for him during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -7.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total -4.7
Avg player in 15.4m -8.3
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
23
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.1

Lethal catch-and-shoot execution from the corners stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. His off-ball movement and high-energy closeouts amplified a breakout offensive performance. This was a textbook 3-and-D showing where elite shot quality drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 99.8%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 31.9m -17.0
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.0

Capitalized beautifully on dump-off passes and offensive putbacks to generate highly efficient offense. His physical screen-setting and paint enforcement set a punishing tone for the second unit, driving a +6.0 defensive rating. Hitting a rare perimeter look was just the icing on an already dominant interior performance.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 21.3m -11.3
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Ochai Agbaji 20.5m
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite a bounce-back in scoring efficiency, subtle off-ball defensive lapses and poor transition spacing dragged his overall impact into the red. He hit the open looks he was given, but failed to generate any secondary playmaking when the initial action broke down. The positive hustle metrics couldn't mask the structural issues he caused in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 20.5m -11.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Danny Wolf 18.9m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

Smart spatial awareness and timely cuts allowed him to maximize his touches without forcing the issue. He played within the flow of the offense, taking only high-percentage looks to secure a solid positive impact. His fundamental positional defense kept the rotation stable while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 18.9m -10.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ben Saraf 4.0m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Failed to leave any imprint during a brief rotational cameo. The offense essentially played four-on-five with him floating on the perimeter, leading to a negative overall impact. He simply couldn't find the rhythm or aggression needed to replicate his recent scoring production.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -119.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 4.0m -2.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1