GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Daniss Jenkins 36.8m
26
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.0

Orchestrated the offense with precision, utilizing sharp changes of pace to collapse the defense and generate a massive +21.0 box impact. His ability to consistently beat his primary defender forced early rotations, opening up high-value passing lanes. Smart shot selection from beyond the arc further amplified his efficiency during a breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 36.8m -19.1
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 35.5m
22
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.2

Absolute dominance on the interior yielded massive dividends across both box score and defensive metrics. He consistently sealed his man deep in the paint to create high-percentage looks, while simultaneously erasing mistakes on the backline with his rim protection. Relentless effort on the glass ensured the opposition rarely saw second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 35.5m -18.5
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Ausar Thompson 31.0m
7
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.1

Elite defensive instincts and rapid closeouts resulted in a stellar +10.2 defensive impact that completely derailed the opponent's wing actions. Offensively, he thrived as a short-roll playmaker, consistently finding cutters when the defense collapsed. This two-way versatility drove a highly positive overall score despite minimal scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +10.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 31.0m -16.2
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 28.7m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Perimeter gravity generated a solid box impact, but his overall net score plunged due to being targeted relentlessly in pick-and-roll defensive switches. Opponents actively hunted his matchups, neutralizing the spacing benefits he provided on the other end. The lack of resistance at the point of attack ultimately outweighed his floor-stretching utility.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 28.7m -14.9
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Tobias Harris 6.1m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

A truncated stint on the floor prevented him from establishing any real rhythm or altering the game's flow. He executed cleanly on his lone offensive touch but lacked the minutes to generate meaningful hustle or defensive metrics. The overall impact hovered right around neutral due to the limited sample size.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 6.1m -3.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

High-energy closeouts and loose-ball recoveries drove a strong hustle rating, but offensive limitations dragged his overall impact into the red. His inability to convert looks inside the arc allowed defenders to cheat off him, bogging down half-court sets. The effort was undeniable, yet the lack of offensive polish disrupted the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 26.6m -13.8
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Pristine shot selection and constant off-ball movement maximized his offensive value, resulting in a stellar +11.3 box impact. He punished defensive lapses by curling off screens with perfect balance, converting at a highly efficient clip without demanding heavy usage. Solid positional awareness on defense ensured his minutes were a net positive for the rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 21.6m -11.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Paul Reed 16.0m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Anchored the backup unit with physical rim deterrence and active hands, driving a solid +4.1 defensive impact. Though his offensive touches were drastically reduced, he accepted a gritty role by setting hard screens and battling for positioning. This blue-collar approach kept his overall rating positive despite the steep drop in scoring production.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 16.0m -8.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Tunnel vision on drives to the basket yielded a few scoring highlights but ultimately resulted in a negative overall impact. By completely ignoring the glass and failing to create for teammates, his one-dimensional approach made the offense highly predictable. The lack of secondary contributions outweighed his above-average finishing at the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 15.7m -8.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 13.6m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Stagnant isolation sequences and a failure to create for others resulted in a noticeably negative net impact during his minutes. He frequently pounded the air out of the ball, leading to contested, late-clock attempts that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Minor defensive contributions were not enough to salvage the disjointed offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -31.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 13.6m -7.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A failure to break down the defense off the dribble led to empty offensive trips and a negative net score. He settled for heavily contested looks rather than moving the defense, short-circuiting the second unit's rhythm. Brief flashes of point-of-attack pressure couldn't compensate for the complete lack of offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.4m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 8.4m -4.4
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Julius Randle 34.7m
27
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.0

Sustained offensive efficiency powered a massive +18.0 box score impact, reflecting his ability to dictate terms in the half-court. His shot selection has been pristine during this recent stretch, avoiding the forced mid-range looks that usually drag down his value. Active rotations on the weak side also yielded a solid defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 34.7m -18.1
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ayo Dosunmu 32.5m
19
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.5

Smothering point-of-attack coverage drove a spectacular +9.8 defensive impact, completely disrupting the opponent's initiation. While his perimeter jumper was slightly erratic, his ability to generate transition opportunities through relentless ball pressure kept his overall net rating firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +9.8
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 32.5m -16.9
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.7

A disastrous -14.7 total impact stems directly from settling for contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. The ongoing shooting slump neutralized his gravity, allowing defenders to sag and clog the driving lanes for teammates. Minor hustle contributions could not salvage a highly damaging offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 29.9m -15.5
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Rudy Gobert 27.2m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Impact was generated entirely through vertical spacing and rim deterrence rather than offensive touches. Elite hustle metrics highlight his constant screening and rim-running, which warped the defense even when he wasn't receiving the ball. He anchored the paint effectively despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 27.2m -14.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mike Conley 22.1m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Capitalized on drop coverage by punishing under-screens with decisive perimeter shot-making. This sudden burst of outside efficiency perfectly complemented the frontcourt, spacing the floor and driving a strong +9.6 box impact. Smart positional defense ensured he didn't give those gains back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 22.1m -11.3
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 30.5m
19
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

High-volume shooting masked a slightly negative overall impact, largely due to forcing contested finishes in traffic. While his perimeter stroke forced opposing bigs to step out, struggles to convert inside the arc stalled offensive momentum. Defensive rotations were fundamentally sound but couldn't completely offset the inefficient interior attempts.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 30.5m -15.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
2
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Masterful weak-side help and disruptive length fueled an elite +11.5 defensive impact. He operated purely as a connective piece on offense, rarely looking at the rim but keeping the ball moving seamlessly. This low-usage, high-IQ defensive clinic perfectly stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +11.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 25.5m -13.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 2
Bones Hyland 19.2m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.1

Bleeding value through erratic shot selection, his insistence on forcing heavily contested pull-ups cratered his offensive impact. The complete inability to connect from deep allowed the defense to ignore him off the ball, stalling multiple second-unit possessions. He offered some resistance at the point of attack, but it was overshadowed by the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 19.2m -9.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Downhill aggression against rotating defenses spiked his box impact during a highly efficient rotational stint. He consistently beat closeouts to attack the paint, generating high-quality looks without forcing the issue. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 18.4m -9.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0