GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 28.4m
8
pts
5
reb
13
ast
Impact
-0.7

Elite playmaking and strong defensive metrics (+7.0) were surprisingly offset, resulting in a slightly negative total impact. While his passing generated significant value, a lack of personal scoring aggression and likely live-ball turnovers dragged down his net score. The contrast between his high assist volume and negative overall rating suggests sloppy ball security defined his floor game.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.4m -16.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Duncan Robinson 24.7m
19
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

Elite floor spacing and lethal perimeter efficiency drove a massive positive impact. His ability to punish defensive rotations from deep was complemented by surprisingly solid defensive metrics (+4.0). The sheer gravity of his outside shooting and excellent shot selection defined his highly influential performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 24.7m -14.1
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Sasser 22.5m
6
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.1

Poor shot selection and a barrage of missed attempts severely damaged his overall impact. Despite minor positive contributions in hustle (+1.2) and defense (+1.6), the offensive inefficiency created too many empty possessions. The inability to find an offensive rhythm from the perimeter was the primary driver of his heavily negative score.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 22.5m -12.7
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 21.7m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Steady, efficient offensive execution anchored a solidly positive net rating. He supplemented his scoring with timely hustle plays (+3.0) and reliable defensive positioning (+2.6). A methodical, mistake-free approach on both ends of the floor was the hallmark of his outing.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 21.7m -12.2
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 14.8m
14
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.6

Total dominance in the painted area drove an overwhelmingly positive impact score. His hyper-efficient interior finishing punished the opposition, even in a slightly reduced scoring role compared to his recent tear. Controlling the restricted area with near-perfect shot selection defined his highly effective minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +72.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 14.8m -8.4
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.5

High-level defensive activity (+6.4) and relentless hustle (+5.0) drove a positive impact despite significant shooting struggles. His ability to generate value through extra effort plays completely offset the damage from a high volume of missed jumpers. Finding ways to impact the game positively when his outside shot wasn't falling defined his resilient performance.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 26.2m -14.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.9

Despite a significant scoring surge, underlying inefficiencies pulled his total impact deep into the negative. Missed perimeter shots and likely hidden costs like turnovers or defensive breakdowns negated his offensive production. The inability to translate scoring volume into actual positive value via poor shot quality was the defining theme of his performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 25.2m -14.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Perfect shooting execution and physical interior play anchored a solidly positive impact. His flawless offensive efficiency was supported by steady hustle (+2.2) and reliable defensive anchoring (+2.3). Capitalizing on every offensive touch without forcing bad shots defined his highly effective outing.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 20.8m -11.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.6

A sharp drop in offensive involvement and likely hidden negative plays resulted in a heavily negative impact score. While his shooting was efficient, the lack of overall production compared to his recent high-scoring stretch left a void on the floor. An inability to assert himself offensively and generate quality looks defined a highly ineffective outing.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 19.6m -11.0
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.1

Blistering perimeter efficiency and disruptive defense (+6.5) fueled a massive positive impact. His ability to punish defensive rotations from deep while simultaneously blowing up opponent actions defined his stellar performance. The combination of high-end shot-making and relentless defensive intensity made him highly influential.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.2%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +46.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.5
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 19.0m -10.8
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 12.4m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.7

Efficient interior finishing and solid defensive positioning (+2.2) resulted in a modestly positive impact. Maintaining his streak of high-percentage shooting helped stabilize his minutes, even with a reduced scoring volume. A reliable, mistake-free approach to his role in the paint defined his effective short stint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 12.4m -7.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

A completely empty offensive showing and poor shot selection tanked his impact score in limited minutes. Missing all of his attempts from the field created a string of wasted possessions that the team couldn't overcome. The inability to find any offensive rhythm and forcing bad looks defined his brief, highly negative appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -148.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.6
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Quentin Grimes 32.1m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

A heavy reliance on misfiring three-pointers severely damaged his overall impact score. Despite generating positive value through hustle plays (+4.2) and solid defensive reads (+4.8), the wasted offensive possessions from deep were too costly. Stubborn perimeter shot selection was the primary culprit behind the negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 32.1m -18.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Justin Edwards 29.3m
12
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.1

A massive surge in scoring aggression fueled a highly positive overall impact. His relentless hustle (+3.9) and disruptive defensive activity (+9.5) created extra possessions and broke the opponent's rhythm. The combination of unexpected offensive punch and high-energy point-of-attack defense defined his standout performance.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +9.5
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 29.3m -16.6
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S VJ Edgecombe 29.2m
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Severe offensive struggles cratered his net impact, driven by poor shot selection and a barrage of missed perimeter jumpers. While his defensive effort (+6.9) remained commendable, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions was too much to overcome. The inability to convert from the outside ultimately defined a frustrating performance.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 29.2m -16.6
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Dominick Barlow 26.4m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

Consistent interior finishing kept his offensive impact afloat, but the overall net score hovered near neutral due to a lack of secondary playmaking. Strong hustle (+4.0) and solid defensive reads (+4.8) provided underlying value. Maintaining a streak of highly efficient shot selection in the paint was the defining element of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 26.4m -14.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Trendon Watford 19.6m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Impact was dragged down by a sharp decline in offensive aggression compared to his recent norms, creating empty possessions. His defensive positioning and rotations (+5.0 Def) were a bright spot, but couldn't overcome the lack of scoring gravity. A passive offensive approach ultimately defined an otherwise quiet outing.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -49.6
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 19.6m -11.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

A significant scoring outburst was surprisingly undermined by hidden negative factors, resulting in a slightly negative total impact. Missed perimeter shots and likely defensive lapses or turnovers dragged down his overall value despite strong box score metrics. The disconnect between his scoring volume and actual net rating highlighted how empty possessions defined his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 30.9m -17.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Dalen Terry 22.7m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Even with an uptick in scoring efficiency, underlying negative factors pulled his total impact into the red. His defensive contributions (+2.5) and hustle (+2.0) were solid, but likely offset by hidden costs like missed rotations or poor spacing not fully captured in the box score. A lack of high-leverage plays prevented him from turning efficient touches into a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 22.7m -12.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Timely perimeter shooting and a significant scoring boost drove a positive net impact. His ability to generate extra value through hustle plays (+4.4) helped compensate for a relatively quiet defensive showing (+1.4). The sudden offensive spark and confident shot-making provided a much-needed lift during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 18.5m -10.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Flawless shooting execution fueled a massive box score impact and a highly positive overall rating. His perfect night from the field completely overshadowed minor defensive lapses (-0.6). Capitalizing on every single offensive opportunity with elite shot selection was the undeniable defining factor of his performance.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 116.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 18.3m -10.4
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Highly efficient two-way play in limited minutes drove a surprisingly strong positive impact. His defensive activity (+3.9) and perfect shooting execution maximized his brief time on the court. Making the absolute most of a short rotation stint with high-energy play defined his highly effective performance.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 8.7m -5.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 4.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A brief and entirely empty stint on the floor resulted in a negative impact score. He failed to register any positive contributions across hustle or defensive metrics during his short run, simply taking up space. The lack of physical engagement or statistical footprint defined this short appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -98.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 4.2m -2.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0