GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DET Detroit Pistons
S Jalen Duren 24.3m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Continued his streak of high-efficiency finishing, anchoring the paint to generate a robust net impact. His physical screen-setting and vertical spacing consistently collapsed the defense, opening up the perimeter. Strong defensive metrics reflect his success in deterring drives and controlling the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 24.3m -16.6
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Cade Cunningham 22.5m
15
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.7

Masterful pace and highly efficient shot selection drove a strong positive impact in a condensed shift. He picked apart defensive coverages with precise reads, balancing his own scoring with high-level facilitation. A stellar defensive rating highlights his size and anticipation in shutting down passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 22.5m -15.4
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 21.2m
15
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Elite off-ball movement and high-volume perimeter shooting stretched the defense to its breaking point. His constant motion forced miscommunications on switches, creating a gravitational pull that benefited his teammates. Surprisingly active hustle metrics showed a willingness to fight through screens and contest on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 21.2m -14.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 21.1m
12
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Smothering point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle defined a highly impactful two-way performance. He supplemented his elite disruption by finding soft spots in the defense for timely cuts to the rim. The ability to turn defensive stops into transition scoring opportunities was a major catalyst for his positive score.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 21.1m -14.5
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 21.1m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite grading out well defensively, a sharp decline in scoring volume and efficiency dragged his total impact into the red. The negative overall score suggests he stalled possessions with methodical, unproductive isolation attempts. He struggled to create separation against physical wing defenders, leading to forced shots late in the clock.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 21.1m -14.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Perfect shooting from the field fueled a breakout scoring performance that kept his impact in the green. He thrived by cutting baseline and finishing opportunistically, avoiding the forced shots that have plagued his recent outings. Active defensive rotations helped solidify his positive contribution during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 24.6m -16.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Caris LeVert 23.1m
10
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.2

Shifted into a primary facilitation role, leveraging his driving gravity to spray passes to open shooters. While his own scoring volume was modest, his ability to collapse the paint generated high-quality looks for the second unit. Solid defensive metrics indicate he stayed engaged at the point of attack rather than resting on defense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 23.1m -15.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.2

Absolute dominance in the pick-and-roll yielded a massive total impact on near-perfect shooting. He punished switches by sealing smaller defenders deep in the paint and finishing with authority. His physical presence set a punishing tone that wore down the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +54.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 21.1m -14.5
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Tenacious point-of-attack defense kept him marginally positive despite erratic perimeter shooting. He was a menace in the passing lanes, disrupting the opponent's offensive flow and generating deflections. However, bricking multiple attempts from deep allowed defenders to cheat off him and crowd the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.7
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 20.1m -13.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaden Ivey 18.7m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Downhill burst resulted in highly efficient interior finishing, but his overall impact was muted by a lack of perimeter threat. Defenders sagged off him to clog the driving lanes, which occasionally bogged down half-court sets. He managed to stay positive by capitalizing on transition opportunities before the defense could set.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 18.7m -12.7
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A sharp drop in offensive production and minimal defensive resistance resulted in a slightly negative outing. He struggled to find a rhythm against aggressive ball pressure, leading to stagnant offensive sequences. The inability to generate his usual scoring volume left the second unit searching for answers.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +33.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 13.2m -9.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 5.0m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A remarkably brief stint limited his ability to influence the game, resulting in a near-neutral impact score. He continued his trend of efficient interior finishing but offered zero hustle metrics during his time on the floor. Defensive lapses in drop coverage quickly neutralized his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 5.0m -3.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

An explosive, perfect shooting burst in garbage time generated a wildly disproportionate impact in just four minutes. He capitalized on relaxed defensive coverages to snap a recent shooting slump with confident perimeter strokes. This micro-shift was defined entirely by instant, high-efficiency offense against a retreating defense.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 4.2m -2.8
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 33.6m
19
pts
11
reb
12
ast
Impact
-6.0

A massive playmaking load drove the offense, but poor shot selection and bricked perimeter looks severely capped his value. The stark contrast between his solid baseline metrics and a negative total impact points to a high volume of costly turnovers while trying to thread the needle. Forced passes in the half-court repeatedly stalled momentum and fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 33.6m -23.0
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Dyson Daniels 33.6m
18
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Aggressive rebounding and highly efficient interior scoring fueled a significant positive impact. He consistently punished mismatches in the paint, converting looks at a high clip while generating crucial second-chance opportunities. Robust defensive metrics highlight an active presence in disrupting the opponent's offensive flow at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -30.8
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 33.6m -22.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
22
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

High-volume perimeter shooting provided a scoring punch, but a disastrous total impact reveals the hidden costs of his floor time. Negative defensive value and a massive drop from his box score suggest he bled points through blown assignments or careless ball security. Opponents routinely targeted him in isolation to exploit his defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 30.5m -20.9
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Onyeka Okongwu 27.9m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Elite defensive positioning and high-energy hustle plays were completely undone by offensive inefficiency. Settling for out-of-character perimeter shots dragged down his scoring gravity and bailed out the defense. The negative overall impact reflects empty offensive possessions that outweighed his otherwise stellar rim-protection efforts.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +6.1
Defense +7.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 27.9m -19.2
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 5
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite a significant uptick in scoring volume compared to his recent slump, his overall impact cratered deep into the negative. The steep drop-off from his positive baseline metrics suggests a heavy toll from hidden penalties like live-ball turnovers or defensive fouls. His inability to connect from beyond the arc allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against his drives.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 27.4m -18.8
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Active hands on defense couldn't salvage a performance marred by offensive invisibility and likely turnover woes. The severe disconnect between his positive hustle and deeply negative total impact points to momentum-killing mistakes with the ball. He struggled to navigate screens, allowing ball-handlers to dictate the tempo and compromise the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 28.6m -19.6
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A surprising scoring surge provided a brief spark, though his overall footprint remained slightly negative. Minimal hustle contributions and average defensive resistance limited his ability to swing the game's momentum. His impact was capped by an inability to secure contested rebounds in traffic, giving up crucial extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 17.1m -11.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Asa Newell 16.6m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Ruthless efficiency around the basket drove a massive scoring spike and a positive net rating. He maximized his touches by diving hard to the rim and finishing through contact. While his defensive footprint was muted, his offensive opportunism provided a crucial bench lift.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 16.6m -11.3
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Luke Kennard 15.3m
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.2

A complete offensive vanishing act resulted in a catastrophic drop in total impact. Passing up open looks and failing to bend the defense rendered him a liability on the floor. Without his usual gravity as a spacer, the half-court offense bogged down entirely during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 15.3m -10.5
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Brief but effective floor-spacing kept his impact slightly above water in limited action. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities, punishing late closeouts to boost his offensive value. Solid positional defense ensured he wasn't played off the floor during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -39.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.5m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 9.5m -6.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0