Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
DET lead ORL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click a shooter to isolate their shots on the court
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 165 attempts

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Suggs Hard 7/18 -1.2
Banchero Open 7/17 -5.7
Wagner 4/11 -2.8
Bane Hard 2/11 -5.6
Black 1/6 -3.7
Carter Jr. 1/6 -4.8
da Silva Hard 1/3 -0.1
Richardson Hard 2/2 +4.0
Cain 1/2 -0.5
Howard Hard 0/2 -1.4

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham 11/19 +4.2
Harris 7/17 -4.2
Duren Open 4/10 -4.1
Robinson Hard 3/9 -1.0
Thompson Open 5/9 -2.4
Jenkins Hard 2/7 -2.3
LeVert 2/6 -2.8
Stewart Open 4/4 +3.7
Huerter Hard 1/2 +0.8
Holland II Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
DET
26/80 Field Goals 39/85
32.5% Field Goal % 45.9%
8/32 3-Pointers 6/26
25.0% 3-Point % 23.1%
23/32 Free Throws 14/24
71.9% Free Throw % 58.3%
44.1% True Shooting % 51.3%
52 Total Rebounds 67
13 Offensive 17
29 Defensive 40
17 Assists 22
0.89 Assist/TO Ratio 0.96
17 Turnovers 22
16 Steals 9
6 Blocks 11
25 Fouls 23
34 Points in Paint 54
19 Fast Break Pts 15
19 Points off TOs 18
5 Second Chance Pts 13
19 Bench Points 23
1 Largest Lead 27
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Tobias Harris
16 PTS · 11 REB · 1 AST · 32.7 MIN
+19.25
2
Franz Wagner
12 PTS · 7 REB · 1 AST · 31.6 MIN
+15.41
3
Ausar Thompson
11 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 27.6 MIN
+12.01
4
Cade Cunningham
27 PTS · 6 REB · 11 AST · 37.4 MIN
+11.63
5
Jalen Duren
11 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 31.7 MIN
+8.55
6
Duncan Robinson
10 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 31.9 MIN
+7.67
7
Jalen Suggs
19 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 31.9 MIN
+7.37
8
Anthony Black
5 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 24.0 MIN
+6.34
9
Jase Richardson
6 PTS · 0 REB · 0 AST · 3.0 MIN
+6.0
10
Paolo Banchero
18 PTS · 6 REB · 8 AST · 34.4 MIN
+5.89
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 R. Holland II REBOUND (Off:0 Def:3) 83–98
Q4 0:04 MISS J. Howard 30' pullup 3PT 83–98
Q4 0:06 DET shot clock Team TURNOVER 83–98
Q4 0:29 R. Holland II REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 83–98
Q4 0:30 MISS J. Carter 27' pullup 3PT 83–98
Q4 0:43 N. Penda REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 83–98
Q4 0:45 MISS D. Robinson Free Throw 2 of 2 83–98
Q4 0:45 D. Robinson Free Throw 1 of 2 (10 PTS) 83–98
Q4 0:45 J. Carter double technical FOUL (1 Tech) 83–97
Q4 0:45 T. Harris double technical FOUL (1 Tech) 83–97
Q4 0:45 M. Wagner personal FOUL (1 PF) (Robinson 2 FT) 83–97
Q4 0:57 J. Richardson 27' 3PT pullup (6 PTS) 83–97
Q4 1:06 C. Cunningham 17' pullup Jump Shot (27 PTS) 80–97
Q4 1:27 J. Duren REBOUND (Off:4 Def:5) 80–95
Q4 1:29 MISS M. Wagner 9' running Layup 80–95

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 Cade Cunningham 37.4m
27
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
+7.4

Cunningham operated as a high-volume maestro, carving up the defense for 27 points and 11 assists to drive a +9.9 offensive credit. While his 7 turnovers were a glaring blemish, he made up for the sloppy ball security by locking down his matchups, holding them to just 4-of-13 shooting.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +19.1
Creation +4.5
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 7
S Tobias Harris 32.7m
16
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.8

Harris was an absolute fortress on defense, suffocating his primary assignments to a dismal 18% shooting (3-of-17) to earn a massive +9.1 defensive credit. He paired that lockdown effort with a sturdy double-double (16 points, 11 boards), driving a +12.2 offensive credit despite a cold night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +14.0
Defense +3.9
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 17.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 31.9m
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Robinson's perimeter stroke was just okay (3-of-8 from deep), but he found other ways to stay on the floor, notably grabbing 6 rebounds (avg 2.7). Surprisingly, his defensive effort stood out, as he held his matchups to 33% shooting and logged 3 deflections for a +3.7 defensive credit.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +35.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense -1.3
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jalen Duren 31.7m
11
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Duren's usual offensive dominance was dialed back (11 points, well below his 21.7 average), but he completely erased the paint for Detroit. He contested 8 shots and held his matchups to a staggering 2-of-12 (17%) from the floor, anchoring the interior defense while chipping in 4 assists.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Scoring +5.2
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +11.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ausar Thompson 27.6m
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.9

Thompson was a two-way connector who thrived in the mud, shooting an efficient 5-of-9 to anchor a +7.7 offensive credit. His true value came on the other end, where he smothered his matchups (4-of-10 shooting) and generated 3 deflections to post a +6.9 defensive credit.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +40.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +7.2
Defense +4.6
Turnovers -4.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Green didn't give the Pistons anything offensively (0-of-1 from the field), but he was an absolute menace as a help defender. He racked up 3 blocks and held his assignments to 31% shooting, fueling a robust +4.6 defensive credit off the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 5.1%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Stewart was a model of offensive efficiency, hitting all four of his shots to generate a +7.5 offensive credit. He backed up that perfect shooting with physical interior play, logging 7 contests and 2 blocks to anchor the second unit's frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.6%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense -5.3
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Caris LeVert 13.6m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

LeVert's offensive struggles continued as he forced up clunky looks, shooting 2-of-6 to produce a meager +0.7 offensive credit. He offered absolutely zero peripheral stats or hustle plays in his 13 minutes, making it a completely hollow shift.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Jenkins suffered a severe offensive drop-off, managing just 4 points (-74% vs his 15.4 average) on a clunky 2-of-7 shooting night. His inability to find a rhythm resulted in a -1.4 offensive credit, stalling out the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Holland was entirely neutralized on offense, failing to score on his lone shot attempt in 7 minutes of action. He managed to grab 3 rebounds, but his overall lack of aggression led to a negative offensive credit (-0.9).

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Huerter was practically invisible during his brief 6-minute stint, attempting just two shots and finishing with 3 points (-70% vs avg). His lack of involvement dragged down his offensive credit (-1.8), rendering him a non-factor off the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring +2.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Paul Reed 0.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Reed saw less than a minute of floor time, recording absolutely no counting stats. It was a pure placeholder shift with a negligible +0.3 defensive credit.

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 0.8m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Sasser was subbed in for a 46-second cameo and didn't register a single statistic. His box score and impact metrics were completely blank.

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 0.8m
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 34.4m
18
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.3

Banchero prioritized playmaking over his typical scoring volume, dishing out 8 assists (avg 5.6) to drive a +5.2 offensive credit. However, his defensive impact was muted as his primary matchups shot a comfortable 53% (8-of-15) from the floor, contributing to a tough -15 night for the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.9%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.7
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Desmond Bane 33.6m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

A frigid shooting night (2-of-11 from the floor) severely limited Bane's typical offensive engine role, yielding just a +4.0 offensive credit. He tried to salvage his value through sheer effort, securing 3 loose-ball recoveries and 7 contests, but the lack of scoring punch was glaring.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.6%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -32.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +4.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.1
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -6.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 31.9m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.9

Suggs took on a heavier scoring burden, pouring in 19 points (+49% vs avg) on high-volume perimeter shooting (3-of-10 from deep) to generate a +8.9 offensive credit. However, his usually disruptive defense took a back seat, as he failed to record a steal and allowed his matchups to shoot 50% from the field.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +7.6
Defense -2.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Franz Wagner 31.6m
12
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.2

Wagner's jump shot abandoned him (0-for-2 from deep, 12 points), but he compensated by turning into an absolute menace on the defensive end. A massive 8 deflections and 4 steals fueled an elite +10.2 defensive credit, while holding his assignments to just 42% shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -37.2
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +9.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Carter Jr. was completely neutralized inside, managing just 3 points on 1-of-6 shooting while fouling out in 23 minutes. His defensive anchor role also collapsed, as opponents torched him for 69% shooting (11-of-16) when he was the primary defender, resulting in a minimal +2.6 defensive credit.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -55.1
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Black was an offensive non-factor (1-of-6 shooting), but he completely altered the game's rhythm with his perimeter harassment. His 3 steals and 5 deflections powered a massive +8.5 defensive credit, proving he can swing possessions even when his shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +7.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 21.2m
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Bitadze didn't attempt a single field goal, yet he anchored the second unit perfectly through relentless rim protection and activity. His 9 contests, 4 deflections, and 2 blocks fueled a +4.9 defensive credit, proving his worth as a low-maintenance interior enforcer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.7
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A passive offensive approach defined da Silva's 16 minutes, as he attempted just three shots to finish with 3 points (-72% vs his average). He did offer some resistance on the other end, holding his matchups to 2-of-6 shooting, but his overall footprint (+0.7 offensive credit) was too small to make a difference.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 7.8m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Relegated to a minor 7-minute role, Cain was practically invisible on offense, managing just 2 points on two shot attempts. He chipped in 4 contests to salvage a +3.3 defensive credit, but couldn't find the rhythm needed to earn a longer look.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.0

Richardson made the absolute most of his 3-minute cameo, draining both of his three-point attempts to spark a quick +6.0 offensive credit. It was a pure microwave scoring stint with zero peripheral stats to speak of.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

Carter logged just 3 minutes of garbage time, failing to score while missing his lone three-point attempt. A single steal helped him post a +2.6 defensive credit, but his stint was otherwise entirely uneventful.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.4

Howard's brief 3-minute appearance was an empty-calorie cardio session marked by two missed three-pointers. He generated a negative offensive credit (-1.8) and offered virtually nothing else across the box score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Wagner was a complete non-factor during his 3 minutes of action, grabbing a single rebound and missing his only shot. The lack of engagement resulted in a flat zero for his hustle credit and a negligible overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 3.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Penda barely broke a sweat in his 3-minute garbage-time run, failing to attempt a shot while securing one rebound. He offered a token contest on defense, but his impact was essentially a blank slate.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0