GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 44.6m
19
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-13.9

Impact cratered due to a disastrous string of live-ball turnovers against aggressive trapping schemes. He consistently overdribbled in the pick-and-roll, allowing the defense to reset and forcing late-clock bailouts. Despite solid raw production, his inability to manage game tempo severely damaged the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.6m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 44.6m -25.6
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jalen Duren 42.0m
26
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.8

Dominated the interior by sealing off driving lanes and acting as an immovable drop-coverage anchor. His relentless effort on the offensive glass created crushing second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit. The combination of vertical spacing and paint intimidation drove an overwhelmingly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +24.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +37.0
Avg player in 42.0m -24.2
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
S Ausar Thompson 37.1m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.3

An absolute terror in the passing lanes, his elite anticipation fueled a massive positive swing through transition run-outs. He completely neutralized the opponent's lead wing, using his length to smother pull-up attempts and deny airspace. The sheer volume of deflections and extra possessions he generated defined the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +18.8
Hustle +9.7
Defense +9.1
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 37.1m -21.3
Impact +16.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 35.4m
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Methodical post-ups generated steady offense, but his slow closeouts on the perimeter bled value on the other end. He was frequently targeted in pick-and-pop situations, failing to contest stretch bigs effectively. The offensive efficiency kept his head above water, though defensive lethargy capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 35.4m -20.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 31.9m
17
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.7

Constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defense, creating wide-open driving lanes for teammates even when he didn't touch the ball. He showed surprising competence in defensive rotations, taking away corner skips with timely closeouts. This dual-threat of gravity and disciplined positioning yielded a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 31.9m -18.2
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Operated strictly as a decoy, drawing top-side coverage that opened up backdoor cuts for the frontcourt. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently requiring help defense that left shooters open. The resulting tug-of-war between his offensive gravity and defensive limitations resulted in a perfectly neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.1
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 20.4m -11.7
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 15.2m
4
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Stagnated the offense with prolonged isolation sets that rarely compromised the defensive shell. While his individual point-of-attack defense was surprisingly stout, the lack of ball movement on the other end stalled momentum. A failure to capitalize on advantage situations ultimately dragged his net impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -33.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 15.2m -8.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Injected immediate physicality into the lineup, blowing up multiple dribble handoffs with aggressive hedging. His willingness to sacrifice his body on loose balls swung critical momentum during a tight third-quarter stretch. The raw energy and defensive disruption easily outweighed a few erratic offensive decisions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 15.0m -8.7
Impact +1.8
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
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently arriving a half-step late on weakside rotations. His hesitation to attack closeouts bogged down the halfcourt offense and allowed the defense to recover. A lack of physical force on box-outs further diminished his short stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 12.5m -7.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 10.9m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a brief but chaotic burst of energy, scrambling offensive schemes with his unorthodox rim runs. His tendency to bite on pump fakes compromised defensive rebounding positioning, leading to unnecessary put-backs. Still, his hyper-active hands in the paint managed to keep his overall contribution barely positive.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -57.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 10.9m -6.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Dyson Daniels 43.2m
16
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Strong defensive instincts at the point of attack fueled a positive overall impact, heavily supported by his elite screen navigation. His ability to blow up dribble handoffs disrupted the opponent's primary actions and generated extra possessions. The sheer volume of loose ball recoveries heavily insulated his value despite a quiet perimeter shooting night.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.2m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 43.2m -24.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jalen Johnson 42.0m
27
pts
8
reb
12
ast
Impact
+1.5

A massive statistical output masked significant defensive lapses in weakside rotation that bled points. His tendency to force tight-window passes in the halfcourt led to live-ball turnovers, severely undercutting his overall metric. He thrived in transition finishing, but the defensive bleed kept his net influence marginal.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 24.8%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 42.0m -24.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.2

Shot selection heavily weighed down his net rating, as early-clock perimeter heaves stalled offensive momentum. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently getting blown by on straight-line drives. A brief third-quarter scoring burst wasn't enough to offset the defensive breakdowns and empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.3m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 40.3m -23.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 34.9m
27
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite a massive scoring surge, his overall footprint was negative due to being consistently targeted in pick-and-roll switches. Opposing guards hunted him in isolation, forcing defensive collapses that led to open corner looks. The high-usage offensive role simply couldn't outpace the points surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 34.9m -20.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Onyeka Okongwu 24.0m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Impact slipped into the red due to poor positioning against heavier frontcourt matchups, allowing deep post catches. While his perimeter closeouts were sharp, he struggled to anchor the defensive glass during crucial second-half stretches. Foul trouble on pump fakes ultimately negated his highly efficient offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 24.0m -13.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Jock Landale 28.1m
5
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Defensive rim protection metrics looked solid, but his heavy feet on the perimeter allowed guards to easily turn the corner. He clogged the paint offensively, ruining spacing for slashers and forcing contested midrange pull-ups. The inability to finish through contact on the roll ultimately derailed his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 28.1m -16.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Tunnel vision on drives into heavy traffic resulted in costly transition opportunities going the other way. While his weakside shot-blocking provided a defensive spark, his erratic decision-making in the halfcourt stalled out multiple possessions. Getting caught ball-watching on back-door cuts erased the value of his athletic rim contests.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 19.6m -11.3
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.2

Struggled to find his rhythm as opponents aggressively top-sided his off-ball screens, denying him clean catch-and-shoot windows. He became a liability in transition defense, repeatedly failing to match up and stop the ball. The lack of offensive gravity compounded his struggles to stay in front of quicker wings.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 11.6m -6.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 11.1m
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Completely flipped the game's momentum with relentless ball pressure during a pivotal second-quarter stint. His flawless navigation of off-ball screens denied primary targets and forced late-clock isolations. This elite point-of-attack disruption yielded an outsized positive impact in highly limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 11.1m -6.3
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Looked out of sync within the offensive flow, frequently passing up open looks and clogging driving lanes. His inability to stay attached to movement shooters created severe spacing issues for the defense. A lack of physical engagement on 50/50 balls further tanked his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +40.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 9.3m -5.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely registered an impact during a fleeting garbage-time appearance. His only notable action was a quick defensive rotation that prevented a baseline drive. The sample size was simply too small to move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +250.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 0.9m -0.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0