GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 30.2m
17
pts
8
reb
15
ast
Impact
+11.8

The combination of high-level playmaking and two-way effort made him the absolute engine of the game (+11.8 Total). He picked apart the defense with precision passing out of the pick-and-roll while using his size to disrupt passing lanes (+9.7 Def) on the other end. It was a brilliant floor-general performance defined by elite defensive engagement and masterful offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.7
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 30.2m -18.5
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 27.9m
30
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+25.6

Opponents simply had no answer for his size and positioning around the basket, leading to an absolutely dominant interior performance (+25.6 Total). He controlled the paint entirely, combining elite rim protection (+10.7 Def) with a barrage of high-percentage looks to continue his scorching streak. His sheer physicality dictated the terms of engagement on both ends.

Shooting
FG 12/15 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +38.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +27.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +10.7
Raw total +42.6
Avg player in 27.9m -17.0
Impact +25.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 23.7m
14
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

Elite spacing and efficient shot-making drove a massive box score (+17.0), but defensive liabilities (-0.5) ate into his overall value. While he punished closeouts perfectly, he likely gave back points on the other end through targeted isolation matchups. His offensive gravity remains his defining, singular trait, bending the defense on every possession.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 23.7m -14.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Marcus Sasser 21.9m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

He found his stroke from deep, punishing drop coverage and creating space off the dribble to break out of a brutal shooting slump. This massive scoring spike drove a highly positive box score (+15.5) and tilted the floor in his team's favor. While his hustle metrics were quiet, the sheer shot-making gravity was the defining factor of his stint.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 21.9m -13.4
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Javonte Green 21.2m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Defined entirely by his chaotic, high-energy defensive presence (+7.8) and relentless hustle (+6.1) that disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. He didn't need to score to be effective, instead generating value through deflections, loose ball recoveries, and blowing up screens. A true glue-guy performance that perfectly masked his quiet offensive night.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +6.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 21.2m -13.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

He struggled to maintain his usual offensive flow, missing crucial momentum shots that dragged his overall impact into the red (-3.7). Despite decent shooting splits and a positive box score (+6.5), hidden costs like live-ball turnovers or bad fouls severely hurt his value. His defensive effort (+3.1) was commendable but couldn't offset the offensive sloppiness.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 24.2m -14.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Caris LeVert 22.9m
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.9

A disastrous offensive showing (-15.9 Total) fueled by forced shots and a completely broken perimeter stroke. While he tried to compensate with active hands on defense (+3.6), the sheer volume of empty possessions killed the team's spacing during crucial stretches. This was a massive step backward from his recent steady efficiency, defined by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense -7.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 22.9m -13.9
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.2

Strong point-of-attack defense (+5.9) was completely overshadowed by a severe offensive regression that tanked his overall impact (-4.2). He couldn't get his shot to fall, leading to a pattern of wasted possessions and stalled half-court sets. The playmaking was there, but the lack of a scoring threat allowed defenders to cheat off him and blow up passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 21.3m -13.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

He did the dirty work effectively, providing sturdy, reliable minutes anchored by physical screens and solid positional defense (+3.4). His impact (+2.8) was slightly muted by missed perimeter looks, but his interior presence remained a constant deterrent. A pattern of hard closeouts and rim contests kept the paint secure without needing high usage.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 20.0m -12.3
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

An aggressive offensive approach led to a much-needed scoring surge and a strong box score (+11.1) as he thrived attacking the basket. However, defensive missteps (-1.6) and a pattern of rotational errors nearly erased his positive contributions on the other end. He needs to clean up his off-ball awareness to maximize his athletic tools.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 17.0m -10.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Made the most of a brief cameo, providing a quick burst of positive impact (+1.3) in just over five minutes of action. He converted his only look at the rim and stayed solid defensively (+1.5) without forcing the issue. A perfect example of playing within a role and maintaining spacing during limited rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 5.4m -3.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 4.4m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A brief and ineffective stint (-1.8 Total) snapped a dominant five-game streak of high-percentage finishing around the basket. He couldn't establish post position and missed his only attempt, looking completely out of sync with the second unit's tempo. Defensive activity (+2.4) kept him from completely bottoming out, but the offensive rhythm was non-existent.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 4.4m -2.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Cam Spencer 30.0m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.9

He found great success hunting his shot against drop coverage, breaking out of a recent slump with confident perimeter execution. This massive scoring surge fueled a stellar box score (+17.8), though hidden costs like transition give-backs dragged his final impact down to +3.9. Still, his ability to stretch the floor was the defining element of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 30.0m -18.4
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Impact was completely derailed by abysmal perimeter shooting and likely live-ball turnovers, plunging his Total to -9.9. His defensive activity (+6.8) and hustle metrics (+6.1) were actually excellent, showing great engagement on that end. However, a pattern of bricked open looks allowed defenders to sag off, neutralizing his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 29.6m -18.1
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
S Cedric Coward 24.6m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

A sharp drop in scoring volume exposed flaws in his floor game, likely driven by ball security issues or poorly timed fouls that sank his impact (-2.4). Despite solid defensive metrics (+3.0) and good energy plays (+4.9 Hustle), he couldn't overcome the offensive sloppiness. He struggled to find the same rhythm against physical matchups that made him so effective over the last five games.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +4.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 24.6m -15.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 24.6m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Poor shot selection and likely offensive fouls or turnovers erased the value of his high-volume shot creation, dragging his impact to -2.9. While the box score looked solid (+8.2), the hidden costs of his aggressive drives hurt the team's overall efficiency. He needs to balance his downhill attacks with better decision-making to keep his team out of transition disadvantages.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 24.6m -15.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Scoring efficiency drove a strong box score (+12.6), continuing a hot streak of high-percentage finishing around the rim. However, his overall impact was heavily muted (+1.4) by defensive lapses (-0.4) and likely empty possessions that gave points right back. He operated more as a pure play-finisher rather than a connective piece, struggling when forced to make reads.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.4
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 21.6m -13.3
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Tyler Burton 27.0m
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.7

An absolute cratering of offensive value (-16.7 Total) defined this outing, driven by a brutal volume of forced, contested shots. While he tried to stay engaged defensively (+2.3), the sheer number of wasted possessions killed the team's momentum during key stretches. It was a stark regression from his steady, efficient production over the previous five games.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -52.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 27.0m -16.7
Impact -16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

A lack of scoring punch and likely turnover woes completely derailed his effectiveness on the floor, resulting in a -8.1 Total impact. Defensive engagement (+3.5) couldn't salvage a performance marred by offensive disjointedness. He failed to replicate his recent steady play, showing a pattern of hesitation when attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 24.2m -14.9
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Javon Small 23.4m
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.5

He paired lethal perimeter shot-making with suffocating defensive activity (+7.5), completely dominating his matchup on the perimeter. This masterclass in two-way efficiency resulted in a massive +18.5 overall impact. The scoring explosion was entirely organic, coming within the flow of the offense without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 23.4m -14.3
Impact +18.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Elite defensive metrics (+6.4) highlight his ability to blow up actions and aggressively navigate screens at a high level. Unfortunately, a severe offensive drop-off and bricked perimeter looks sank his overall impact (-4.0). He was essentially playing zero-gravity offense, allowing his primary defender to roam and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.4
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 23.4m -14.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Taj Gibson 11.6m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

The veteran looked a step slow compared to his highly efficient play over the last week, struggling to anchor the paint defensively (+0.1). Missed interior looks and an inability to finish through contact dragged his impact into the negative (-2.8). He provided some mild hustle value (+1.6) but failed to establish a rhythm in limited rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 11.6m -7.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0