GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 39.1m
30
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.5

Scorching hot shot-making and pristine offensive orchestration drove a massive positive rating. He consistently broke down the defense to create high-quality looks, maximizing his scoring burst while keeping mistakes to an absolute minimum.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +27.3
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 39.1m -20.5
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ausar Thompson 35.8m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Elite hustle metrics were entirely undone by brutal offensive execution and poor shot selection. Clanking attempts around the rim stunted the offense, ensuring his high-energy plays didn't translate to a positive bottom line.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.2%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +7.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 35.8m -18.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 33.3m
20
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.8

Dominant interior positioning yielded high-percentage looks and frequent trips to the foul line. His physical presence on the glass and steady defensive anchoring cemented a highly effective two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +10.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 33.3m -17.5
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 31.9m
14
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

A barrage of missed jumpers dragged down what was otherwise a solid defensive showing. The inefficiency on offense acted as an anchor, preventing his secondary playmaking and rebounding from keeping his impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 31.9m -16.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 27.6m
12
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.7

Being a one-dimensional floor spacer severely punished his overall rating, as defensive limitations and likely turnovers bled points the other way. Hitting perimeter shots couldn't mask how much he was targeted and exploited on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 27.6m -14.5
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Surprisingly stout defensive execution kept his head above water on a night where his typical scoring volume vanished. He found ways to contribute through smart positioning and timely rotations rather than relying on his perimeter stroke.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 20.5m -10.8
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 16.9m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

A complete lack of hustle and negative defensive impact tanked his brief stint on the floor. Loose ball security and forced offensive reads likely handed the opponent easy transition opportunities, nullifying his modest scoring output.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 16.9m -8.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.1

Absolute havoc-wreaking energy defined this stint, with elite hustle and defensive disruption driving a massive positive swing. He didn't need to touch the ball to alter the game, generating extra possessions and blowing up opponent sets through sheer effort.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.7%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +54.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 14.9m -7.9
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Paul Reed 14.7m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

Efficient finishing and solid defensive rotations made him a clear net positive in limited action. He played strictly within his role, avoiding costly mistakes while capitalizing on the high-percentage looks created by his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 14.7m -7.7
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

A disastrous short stretch defined by forced, low-quality shots and defensive breakdowns. His erratic decision-making actively hurt the team's momentum, resulting in a steep negative impact over a tiny sample size.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 41.7%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.9
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 5.2m -2.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Austin Reaves 39.5m
24
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.1

The scoring volume was completely hollowed out by hidden negatives, likely costly turnovers or defensive targeting that fueled opponent runs. Despite finding the basket frequently, his inability to generate stops or protect the basketball resulted in a deeply negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 39.5m -20.7
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Luka Dončić 38.8m
32
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.9

Incredible hustle and elite defensive engagement completely salvaged a brutal, high-volume shooting slump. His sheer force of will on the margins—likely generating extra possessions and blowing up opponent sets—drove a massive positive impact despite the clunky offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 11/29 (37.9%)
3PT 3/13 (23.1%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 39.3%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +8.3
Defense +8.3
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 38.8m -20.4
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S LeBron James 38.7m
12
pts
9
reb
10
ast
Impact
-9.1

A steep negative impact points to significant hidden costs, likely a high volume of live-ball turnovers or defensive breakdowns that gave points right back to the opponent. His unusually passive offensive approach failed to punish the defense, compounding the negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 38.7m -20.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jake LaRavia 28.9m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

The lack of offensive aggression severely limited his overall value, rendering him largely invisible during his floor time. His negative total impact suggests hidden costs like defensive lapses or turnovers entirely negated his efficient but extremely low-volume shooting.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 28.9m -15.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Deandre Ayton 26.9m
13
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.4

Elite shot selection defined his stint, converting at a highly efficient clip to continue a dominant streak of accurate shooting. Strong defensive positioning and rim deterrence amplified his pristine offensive execution, driving a robust positive impact.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 26.9m -14.1
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luke Kennard 28.2m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

An absolute zero in the hustle metrics combined with erratic perimeter shooting cratered his overall value. Failing to stretch the floor effectively while offering no secondary rim pressure or defensive resistance made him a severe liability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 28.2m -14.7
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 20.8m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

Flawless finishing around the rim paired with dominant defensive presence fueled a massive positive swing. His ability to anchor the paint and convert every look he was given maximized his efficiency in a highly impactful burst.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 20.8m -10.8
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.5

A relatively quiet stint defined by a lack of defensive disruption, which is usually his calling card. Without his typical chaotic energy generating extra possessions, his limited offensive repertoire left him as a slight negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 15.5m -8.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Barely saw the floor, missing his only look in a brief cameo. A quick foul or minor rotational mistake likely tipped his negligible impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A literal placeholder appearance at the end of a quarter. The fractional negative score is merely statistical noise from a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0