Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
CHA lead DET lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DET 2P — 3P —
CHA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 177 attempts

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 7/13 +0.6
Robinson Hard 6/11 +3.3
Duren Open 8/11 +3.0
Holland II 5/10 +1.6
Jenkins Hard 2/9 -3.4
Thompson 5/8 +1.3
LeVert Open 2/7 -4.7
Harris 3/5 +2.0
Huerter Hard 2/5 -0.1
Reed 2/4 0.0

CHA CHA Shot-making Δ

Ball Hard 7/20 +2.1
Miller 9/20 -0.6
Knueppel 4/12 -3.5
Bridges Hard 3/7 +0.6
White 3/7 +0.3
James 1/6 -5.0
Williams Hard 1/5 -3.3
Diabaté Open 3/4 +1.5
Mann Hard 1/4 -2.0
Tillman Hard 1/1 +1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DET
CHA
45/89 Field Goals 34/88
50.6% Field Goal % 38.6%
9/27 3-Pointers 13/47
33.3% 3-Point % 27.7%
19/26 Free Throws 19/23
73.1% Free Throw % 82.6%
58.7% True Shooting % 51.0%
56 Total Rebounds 54
16 Offensive 14
33 Defensive 27
29 Assists 16
1.93 Assist/TO Ratio 1.00
13 Turnovers 15
13 Steals 10
8 Blocks 8
20 Fouls 17
62 Points in Paint 42
20 Fast Break Pts 12
22 Points off TOs 18
27 Second Chance Pts 12
45 Bench Points 23
21 Largest Lead 4
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Brandon Miller
22 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 31.2 MIN
+19.91
2
LaMelo Ball
27 PTS · 5 REB · 8 AST · 32.7 MIN
+19.75
3
Jalen Duren
20 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 21.9 MIN
+17.59
4
Ausar Thompson
12 PTS · 5 REB · 6 AST · 24.9 MIN
+13.81
5
Duncan Robinson
19 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 25.7 MIN
+13.72
6
Grant Williams
2 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 22.2 MIN
+12.79
7
Miles Bridges
10 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 23.3 MIN
+11.29
8
Caris LeVert
6 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 14.6 MIN
+10.77
9
Ronald Holland II
13 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 21.0 MIN
+10.71
10
Cade Cunningham
14 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 28.4 MIN
+10.65
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 DET shot clock Team TURNOVER 118–100
Q4 0:23 M. Sasser REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 118–100
Q4 0:23 M. Sasser BLOCK (1 BLK) 118–100
Q4 0:23 MISS T. Mann 6' driving Layup - blocked 118–100
Q4 0:35 X. Tillman REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 118–100
Q4 0:37 MISS M. Sasser 26' step back 3PT 118–100
Q4 0:58 P. Reed REBOUND (Off:3 Def:4) 118–100
Q4 1:00 MISS T. Mann 29' pullup 3PT 118–100
Q4 1:15 R. Holland II 26' 3PT (13 PTS) (M. Sasser 1 AST) 118–100
Q4 1:34 T. Mann driving Layup (2 PTS) 115–100
Q4 1:48 DET shot clock Team TURNOVER 115–98
Q4 2:16 X. Tillman 9' turnaround Jump Shot (2 PTS) 115–98
Q4 2:37 A. Thompson bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (3 TO) 115–96
Q4 2:41 A. Thompson STEAL (3 STL) 115–96
Q4 2:41 P. Connaughton lost ball TURNOVER (1 TO) 115–96

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

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S LaMelo Ball 32.7m
27
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+17.9

A barrage of deep, high-degree-of-difficulty triples warped the opposing defensive scheme and opened up the floor. While his overall field goal efficiency suffered from the sheer volume of perimeter attempts, his audacious shot-making kept the defense terrified. He paired this offensive gravity with surprisingly active hands in passing lanes to boost his defensive metrics (+3.9).

Shooting
FG 7/20 (35.0%)
3PT 6/16 (37.5%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +4.9
Shot Making +6.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.6
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Brandon Miller 31.2m
22
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.2

Elite two-way playmaking defined his night, combining aggressive scoring volume with suffocating perimeter defense (+8.2). He hunted his shot relentlessly, and while the three-ball wasn't perfectly dialed in, his constant rim pressure bent the defense. His ability to lock down his assignment while carrying a heavy offensive load drove a highly positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 29.0m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

A disastrous shooting performance completely derailed the offense, as he repeatedly clanked high-leverage perimeter looks. His inability to convert from deep allowed the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for everyone else. Despite mild defensive effort, his empty offensive possessions acted as an anchor on the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 24.7m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Tremendous hustle metrics (+4.2) and efficient interior finishing couldn't mask underlying rotational mistakes that bled points. He crashed the glass with reckless abandon, but frequently found himself out of position in pick-and-roll coverage. The resulting defensive breakdowns slightly outweighed his high-energy offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +4.7
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 23.3m
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Swapped his usual scoring punch for grimy, high-effort defensive stops (+5.7) to salvage his overall impact. While his perimeter jumper abandoned him, his physicality on the glass and switchability on the wing proved essential. He found ways to contribute to winning basketball when his primary offensive tools were malfunctioning.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Strong rim protection (+4.3) and solid hustle numbers were undermined by an inability to secure the defensive glass or execute offensive sets cleanly. He completely disappeared as a scoring threat, failing to pressure the rim or command defensive attention. The lack of offensive gravity allowed opponents to aggressively double-team the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Put on an absolute masterclass in defensive positioning (+11.9) that completely erased his abysmal shooting night. He functioned as a brick wall in the post and blew up multiple offensive actions through sheer anticipation and elite hustle (+5.2). His willingness to do the dirty work proved infinitely more valuable than his missing jump shot.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense +10.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
Sion James 16.8m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.7

Offensive ineptitude severely punished the team during his minutes, as he bricked nearly every look he took. His inability to punish closeouts or hit open jumpers completely destroyed the team's spacing. Even adequate defensive positioning couldn't compensate for the dead-weight possessions he generated on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -30.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Scoring -2.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Coby White 16.2m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

A complete lack of defensive resistance (-0.9) and zero hustle plays allowed opponents to score at will against his matchups. While he knocked down his perimeter looks efficiently, he gave those points right back on the other end through blown assignments. His one-dimensional performance actively harmed the team's ability to string together stops.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -67.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 10.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Ran around for ten minutes without leaving a single positive imprint on the offensive end. His complete refusal to look at the basket forced his teammates to play four-on-five, stalling out multiple possessions. Mild defensive competence couldn't save a shift defined by total offensive passivity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Provided a brief, stabilizing presence in the frontcourt by converting his only look and executing defensive schemes properly. He didn't force any action, simply filling space and setting solid screens during a short rotational bridge. A perfectly adequate, mistake-free cameo that kept the ship steady.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 3.5m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Forced the issue offensively during a chaotic, short stint, resulting in a flurry of low-quality, missed jumpers. He completely ignored defensive responsibilities and hustle plays, focusing solely on hunting his own shot. The resulting empty possessions quickly tanked his impact score in just three minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring +0.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

A completely lifeless rotational stint where he failed to register a single positive hustle or offensive statistic. He bricked his lone attempt and was consistently a step slow in transition defense. The team bled points rapidly during his brief, uninspired time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 28.4m
14
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.3

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc and likely ball-security issues torpedoed an otherwise solid playmaking performance. Despite generating quality looks for others and competing hard defensively (+3.8), his empty possessions compounded into a negative overall impact. He struggled to find an efficient scoring rhythm, forcing contested jumpers instead of attacking the teeth of the defense.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 25.7m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

Perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, though streaky outside shooting capped his offensive ceiling. He provided surprisingly sturdy positional defense (+2.8) that prevented his matchup from exploiting him in isolation. A few untimely missed rotations kept his overall impact muted despite strong scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +14.0
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 24.9m
12
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.8

Relentless defensive pressure and high-motor plays drove a stellar overall impact. His elite hustle metrics (+5.0) generated crucial extra possessions and disrupted the opponent's rhythm. A continued streak of highly efficient finishing around the rim anchored his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +9.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +5.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 24.9m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.1

A severe disconnect between his basic counting stats and actual floor impact dragged down his overall score. Defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness allowed easy scoring opportunities that negated his efficient shooting. His inability to generate secondary playmaking or force turnovers left a massive void during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 21.9m
20
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.5

Utter dominance in the paint dictated his massive offensive impact, finishing everything around the basket with brute force. While his defensive metrics dipped slightly below average, his sheer gravity as a roll man warped the opposing frontcourt. Maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient shooting kept the offense humming whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Scoring +17.7
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +9.5
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Aggressive drives to the rim fueled a scoring surge that easily surpassed his recent averages. He paired this offensive burst with engaged, switchable defense (+3.0) that bothered opposing wings. However, a few forced offensive sequences prevented his impact score from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +26.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +8.8
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.7

Clanking a high volume of perimeter looks completely erased the value of his stellar point-of-attack defense. He locked down his assignments on the perimeter (+6.3 Def), but his offensive possessions frequently ended in empty, contested jumpers. The steep drop-off in scoring efficiency forced the offense into a grinding halt during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.4%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +37.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Physical interior presence and disciplined rim protection anchored his highly positive defensive metrics. He set bruising screens that freed up ball-handlers, contributing to winning basketball without demanding touches. A commitment to verticality and boxing out kept the opponent off the offensive glass during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Active hands and crisp defensive rotations (+5.7) salvaged a quiet offensive outing. He functioned perfectly as a connective piece, moving the ball quickly and executing defensive schemes without making costly mistakes. His willingness to scrap for loose balls (+2.1 Hustle) provided hidden value that didn't require scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +77.9
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Utterly maximized his limited touches by taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense. His sturdy defensive positioning (+3.0) and mistake-free execution made him a reliable stabilizing force. Operating strictly as a low-usage spacer allowed the primary creators to thrive without sacrificing defensive integrity.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 129.3%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg +54.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Caris LeVert 14.6m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

Elite defensive disruption masked a brutal shooting night, keeping his overall impact highly positive. He consistently blew up pick-and-rolls and generated transition opportunities through sheer hustle (+2.0). Even when his own shot wasn't falling, his physical perimeter containment dictated the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +1.8
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Paul Reed 9.7m
4
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Relentless activity on the glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities that buoyed his overall score. He maintained his streak of efficient finishing when the ball found him inside, while providing solid weak-side rim protection (+2.7). His chaotic energy disrupted the opposing frontcourt's rhythm just enough to swing his minutes into the positive.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that offered no opportunity to influence the game. His complete lack of statistical production across all categories resulted in a slightly negative baseline score. He simply logged cardio during a rotational placeholder shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Scraped together a slightly positive impact through brief but engaged defensive pressure (+1.2). A missed perimeter look represented his only offensive involvement during a fleeting rotational appearance. He managed to avoid any costly mistakes, keeping his head above water in limited action.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0