Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 162 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram Hard 7/15 -0.1
Mamukelashvili Open 7/13 +0.3
Murray-Boyles Open 7/13 -3.1
Barrett 7/12 +2.5
Poeltl Open 6/9 +0.1
Barnes 2/8 -4.1
Shead Hard 2/7 -2.3
Walter Hard 1/6 -3.4
Lawson 4/5 +4.8
Fultz Open 0/1 -1.2

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Duren Open 12/13 +6.8
Robinson Hard 6/9 +7.4
Jenkins Hard 5/9 +3.3
Harris 4/9 -0.5
LeVert 5/7 +3.6
Reed Open 5/6 +2.7
Huerter 2/6 -1.1
Thompson Open 2/6 -3.0
Sasser Hard 3/4 +3.8
Holland II 0/4 -4.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
DET
43/89 Field Goals 44/73
48.3% Field Goal % 60.3%
10/29 3-Pointers 13/23
34.5% 3-Point % 56.5%
20/31 Free Throws 26/30
64.5% Free Throw % 86.7%
56.5% True Shooting % 73.7%
48 Total Rebounds 42
14 Offensive 7
21 Defensive 27
33 Assists 33
2.36 Assist/TO Ratio 1.57
13 Turnovers 18
13 Steals 7
3 Blocks 5
22 Fouls 22
60 Points in Paint 54
14 Fast Break Pts 12
33 Points off TOs 19
11 Second Chance Pts 7
49 Bench Points 39
0 Largest Lead 23
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jalen Duren
31 PTS · 9 REB · 3 AST · 34.6 MIN
+27.64
2
RJ Barrett
24 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 30.8 MIN
+18.35
3
Collin Murray-Boyles
14 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 23.8 MIN
+17.05
4
Duncan Robinson
19 PTS · 1 REB · 2 AST · 29.0 MIN
+15.53
5
Daniss Jenkins
21 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 36.6 MIN
+15.45
6
Sandro Mamukelashvili
16 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 22.0 MIN
+14.91
7
Jakob Poeltl
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 23.5 MIN
+13.54
8
A.J. Lawson
13 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 18.5 MIN
+12.47
9
Paul Reed
10 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 13.4 MIN
+11.32
10
Brandon Ingram
22 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 30.8 MIN
+11.13
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:19 DET shot clock Team TURNOVER 116–127
Q4 0:41 J. Duren REBOUND (Off:2 Def:7) 116–127
Q4 0:42 MISS S. Mamukelashvili driving finger roll Layup 116–127
Q4 0:49 S. Mamukelashvili REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 116–127
Q4 0:52 MISS D. Robinson 3PT 116–127
Q4 1:05 TEAM defensive REBOUND 116–127
Q4 1:06 C. LeVert BLOCK (2 BLK) 116–127
Q4 1:06 MISS M. Fultz driving Layup - blocked 116–127
Q4 1:15 A. Lawson REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 116–127
Q4 1:17 MISS T. Harris 7' turnaround Shot 116–127
Q4 1:40 S. Mamukelashvili driving Layup (16 PTS) 116–127
Q4 1:40 S. Mamukelashvili REBOUND (Off:3 Def:2) 114–127
Q4 1:43 MISS A. Lawson driving Layup 114–127
Q4 1:53 J. Duren running Layup (31 PTS) (C. LeVert 2 AST) 114–127
Q4 1:59 C. LeVert REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 114–125

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 36.6m
21
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.3

High-volume scoring masked a deeply flawed floor game characterized by poor defensive resistance and a lack of hustle plays. Opposing guards routinely targeted his flat-footed closeouts, exploiting him at the point of attack to collapse the defense. Despite filling it up offensively, his inability to string together stops or win loose balls resulted in a net negative outing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Scoring +18.0
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Duren 34.6m
31
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+26.1

Absolute domination of the restricted area fueled a massive positive impact, as he converted nearly every touch into high-percentage looks. He bullied opposing centers in the pick-and-roll, demanding double teams that subsequently scrambled the defense. Active rim protection and constant vertical pressure made this a masterclass in two-way interior anchor play.

Shooting
FG 12/13 (92.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Scoring +30.3
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +10.5
Defense -4.5
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 32.9m
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.5

Lethargic closeouts and poor weak-side awareness allowed his matchups to find an easy rhythm from the perimeter. While he managed decent efficiency on his own shot attempts, his tendency to hold the ball and stop offensive momentum resulted in stagnant, late-clock situations. The defensive lapses and ball-stopping habits ultimately outweighed his modest scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 29.0m
19
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.0

Lethal off-ball movement completely warped the opposing defensive scheme, creating massive gravity that opened up the paint for slashers. He punished every late rotation with elite shot-making, capitalizing on a hot streak to break the zone coverage. Surprisingly effective positional defense ensured he didn't give back the points he generated on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 92.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 26.2m
5
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.8

Exceptional defensive disruption and relentless loose-ball recoveries were completely undone by his inability to space the floor. Defenders aggressively sagged off him on the perimeter, which suffocated driving lanes for his teammates and stalled half-court execution. His offensive limitations turned every possession into a four-on-five battle, dragging his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.7

A severe lack of offensive rhythm derailed his impact, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. His inability to shake loose from face-guarding disrupted the team's primary offensive sets, leading to empty possessions and transition opportunities for the opponent. Even with adequate defensive effort, his failure to stretch the floor or punish closeouts crippled the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Caris LeVert 19.0m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Decisive slashing against rotating defenses provided a crucial secondary scoring punch and kept the offense humming. He minimized his usual tendency to over-dribble, instead attacking closeouts immediately to generate high-quality looks at the rim. Timely deflections and solid hustle helped cement a highly efficient, disciplined bench performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +10.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Paul Reed 13.4m
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

Relentless energy on the offensive glass created vital second-chance opportunities and completely demoralized the opposing second unit. He maximized his short stint by executing perfectly in the dunker spot, finishing through contact with remarkable efficiency. Strong rim contests further amplified his value, proving he can anchor the defense during non-starter minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Reckless drives into traffic resulted in blocked shots and wasted possessions, severely hampering the second unit's offensive flow. The defense completely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to pack the paint and stifle his teammates' driving lanes. While he offered some resistance on the wing, his offensive black-hole tendencies made him unplayable down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring -2.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Instant offense off the bench shifted the momentum, as he confidently punished drop coverage with pull-up jumpers. He leveraged his quickness to stay attached to his man at the point of attack, navigating screens effectively during a crucial defensive sequence. This brief but explosive two-way burst provided a massive jolt of energy exactly when the rotation needed it.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

High-motor defensive rotations and quick closeouts defined a brief but productive stint as a defensive specialist. He embraced a zero-usage offensive role, focusing entirely on setting screens and clearing space for the primary creators. Winning a crucial loose ball highlighted his commitment to doing the dirty work in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 30.8m
22
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.3

A heavy diet of contested mid-range isolation attempts derailed his overall effectiveness, resulting in a negative net rating despite strong individual scoring efficiency. Tunnel vision on offense yielded zero playmaking output, allowing the opponent to aggressively trap his drives without penalty. Defensive apathy further dragged down his value during crucial rotation sequences.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -44.6
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 30.8m
24
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.8

Aggressive downhill drives forced defensive collapses, yielding high-quality perimeter looks and driving a strong positive impact. His commitment to fighting through screens and contesting shots at the point of attack provided a massive boost on the other end of the floor. This two-way balance defined his minutes, punishing mismatches with physical drives while maintaining defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -31.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +18.7
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 27.7m
5
pts
1
reb
12
ast
Impact
-11.2

Despite elite defensive metrics and active hands creating secondary opportunities, his overall impact cratered due to severe offensive passivity. Passing up open looks led to a stagnant half-court offense, while his missed jumpers allowed the defense to sag into the paint. His reluctance to attack his primary matchup neutralized the value of his high-level playmaking.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 4
S Ja'Kobe Walter 26.7m
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.4

Perimeter bricklaying severely damaged offensive spacing, allowing defenders to routinely pack the paint and disrupt driving lanes. While his tremendous energy on loose balls and active closeouts salvaged some value, the sheer volume of wasted possessions was too much to overcome. The inability to punish closeouts ultimately rendered him an offensive liability in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring -1.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 23.5m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite rim-running and decisive rolls to the basket generated highly efficient scoring chances, continuing a reliable streak of interior dominance. He anchored the paint effectively, utilizing his frame to seal off defenders and create wide-open passing lanes for guards. Solid positional defense and timely screen-setting kept the offense flowing smoothly during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -30.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +9.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 29.3m
6
pts
0
reb
12
ast
Impact
-6.1

Relentless ball pressure and elite hustle metrics set a physical tone, but poor shot selection at the rim negated those extra possessions. Opposing bigs completely ignored him on the perimeter, clogging passing lanes and forcing him into low-percentage floaters. His inability to finish through contact ultimately dragged his net impact into the red despite excellent defensive disruption.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.9

Dominant physicality on the interior overwhelmed the opposing frontcourt, generating massive value through second-chance opportunities and hard screens. His elite defensive positioning deterred drives and consistently forced low-percentage mid-range jumpers. By out-working his matchups on the glass and finishing through contact, he dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +12.7
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.1

Fluid movement off the ball and decisive cuts to the basket dismantled the opponent's zone coverage. He supplemented his high-IQ offensive reads with active hands in the passing lanes, sparking multiple transition opportunities. This versatile floor-stretching dynamic forced opposing bigs out of the paint, opening up the entire offense.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
A.J. Lawson 18.5m
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.0

Flawless execution as a spot-up threat punished defensive rotations and stretched the floor vertically during a key second-half run. He paired this sudden offensive explosion with disciplined weak-side help, blowing up several lob attempts. Staying strictly within his role maximized his efficiency and provided a vital two-way spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 102.8%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

A brief, unimpactful stint was marred by a complete lack of offensive involvement and passive off-ball movement. He failed to draw defensive attention during his limited minutes, allowing his primary defender to roam freely as a free safety. Without any shot attempts or defensive playmaking, his presence on the floor was essentially a net negative for spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -1.5
Turnovers -1.4
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
-11.3

Forced a contested jumper early in the shot clock during a rushed garbage-time possession, instantly hurting offensive flow. His inability to initiate the offense or generate any defensive friction made his brief cameo a slight drag on the team's efficiency. The lack of engagement on either end resulted in empty minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Purely a placeholder appearance at the end of the rotation with zero statistical footprint. He merely occupied space on the perimeter without threatening the defense or contributing to the rebounding battle. This passive cardio session naturally bled minor negative value due to the lack of tangible production.

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 1.4m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0