GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Kevin Huerter 33.7m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.1

Lethal off-ball movement and decisive shot selection stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. He paired his perimeter scoring with surprisingly disruptive closeouts (+7.1 Def), resulting in a highly efficient two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.1
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 33.7m -19.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Daniss Jenkins 33.3m
19
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-3.5

Hot perimeter shooting was entirely neutralized by a barrage of careless passes and defensive lapses at the point of attack. The heavy negative impact (-3.5) highlights how his inability to navigate ball screens gave back all the points he created.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 33.3m -19.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 31.4m
30
pts
10
reb
7
ast
Impact
+27.8

Absolute dominance in the painted area powered a staggering +27.8 impact score. He overwhelmed his primary matchup with sheer physicality, finishing everything around the rim while anchoring a suffocating interior defense (+14.4 Def).

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +28.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +14.4
Raw total +46.0
Avg player in 31.4m -18.2
Impact +27.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 29.0m
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

Elite wing defense (+9.7 Def) and relentless loose-ball recoveries (+4.7 Hustle) were the engines behind a highly productive outing. By staying strictly within his offensive role and taking only high-percentage looks, he maximized his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +9.7
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 29.0m -16.8
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Tobias Harris 25.9m
12
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.8

Connective passing and steady rebounding provided a solid baseline, though missed open jumpers capped his ceiling. He managed the game well from the forward spot, using his size to disrupt passing lanes (+4.9 Def) and secure a positive overall margin.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.9m -15.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite pristine shot selection and active cutting, his overall rating slipped into the negative due to foul trouble and missed rotations. He struggled to find a rhythm in transition defense, frequently allowing easy run-outs.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 19.6m -11.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.2

Driving into crowded paint areas resulted in blocked shots and empty possessions that devastated his impact score (-11.2). While he offered minor resistance on the defensive end (+2.0 Def), his lack of offensive polish was a glaring liability.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 19.1m -11.1
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.2

A brutal shooting slump defined by forced, early-clock jumpers completely derailed the offensive flow. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards compounded the damage, leading to a massive -11.2 overall deficit.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 16.2m -9.5
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Paul Reed 14.3m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.5

Crashing the offensive glass and finishing dump-off passes allowed him to carve out a solid +2.5 impact in limited action. His defensive positioning was occasionally suspect (-0.7 Def), but high-motor hustle plays (+3.1) more than compensated.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +59.4
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 14.3m -8.3
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Chaz Lanier 10.2m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

A brief scoring burst was overshadowed by a lack of physical engagement and poor defensive rebounding. Getting caught ball-watching on the perimeter allowed back-door cuts that drove his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 10.2m -6.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Made the most of a garbage-time cameo by converting his only look at the basket. Kept his mistakes to a minimum to register a slightly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 2.5m -1.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Used his short stint to showcase active hands and solid positional defense (+2.1 Def). Even with a missed shot, his energy on the less glamorous end of the floor kept his impact positive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tolu Smith 2.2m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Instantly impacted the game in a micro-stint by securing the paint and converting a quick bucket. His defensive awareness (+1.7 Def) in just two minutes highlighted a highly efficient stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 2.2m -1.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 30.8m
17
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Strong perimeter defense (+6.5 Def) and capable spot-up shooting were completely undermined by sloppy ball security and costly turnovers. The negative overall impact (-2.5) reflects how often his offensive mistakes fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 30.8m -17.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zion Williamson 30.8m
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Bully-ball tactics in the paint generated high-quality looks and a stellar +15.2 box score impact. His physical presence on the interior forced defensive collapses, while active hands in the passing lanes (+3.4 Hustle) kept the overall rating firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 30.8m -17.9
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dejounte Murray 29.2m
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.9

A disastrous offensive showing defined by forced mid-range jumpers and stagnant isolation sets dragged his impact into the basement (-11.9). While he remained engaged as a point-of-attack defender (+6.8 Def), the sheer volume of empty offensive trips negated any stops he generated.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 29.2m -17.0
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
S Herbert Jones 27.4m
11
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

Uncharacteristically poor defensive rotations (-0.4 Def) and a tendency to get caught on screens tanked his overall value (-7.1). Even with an uptick in perimeter scoring, his inability to string together stops on the wing proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 27.4m -15.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S DeAndre Jordan 16.8m
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Operating strictly as a lob threat and rim protector, he provided a stable but limited interior presence. The positive defensive impact (+4.2) was driven by altering shots at the basket, though his low offensive volume capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 16.8m -9.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

Playmaking flashes were overshadowed by crippling live-ball turnovers that consistently sparked opponent fast breaks. Despite active defensive hands (+3.7 Def), the erratic decision-making in half-court sets drove a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.7
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 27.5m -16.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Perfect shooting from beyond the arc couldn't mask the underlying issues with defensive positioning and off-ball awareness. His negative overall impact (-1.9) stems from getting targeted on switches and giving up high-value looks on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -28.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 22.1m -12.9
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Derik Queen 20.8m
11
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Relentless work on the glass and solid positional defense (+6.4 Def) barely kept his head above water (+0.1). The impact score was heavily suppressed by poor touch around the rim and forcing heavily contested layups in traffic.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.4%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.4
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 20.8m -12.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Yves Missi 16.0m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.0

Dropped passes and missed assignments in the pick-and-roll limited his effectiveness during a brief stint. He managed to provide some rim deterrence (+3.0 Def), but the offensive disjointedness kept him slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -38.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 16.0m -9.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

High-energy minutes as a roll man and weak-side helper translated to a robust +5.5 overall impact. He consistently beat his man down the floor (+2.9 Hustle) and altered multiple attempts at the rim to anchor the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -30.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 15.1m -8.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A fleeting appearance marred by a blown defensive assignment and a rushed offensive possession. The quick negative swing (-2.6) reflects a lack of rhythm and immediate exploitation by the opposing offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.5m -2.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0