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 shooters to compare their shots on the court
ORL 2P — 3P —
DET 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 160 attempts

ORL ORL Shot-making Δ

Banchero Hard 17/31 +11.3
Bane Hard 6/15 +1.8
Black Hard 7/12 +5.9
Suggs Hard 4/9 +1.7
Carter Jr. Hard 2/4 +0.8
Cain Hard 1/4 -1.5
da Silva Hard 1/4 -2.0
Bitadze Hard 0/1 -0.9

DET DET Shot-making Δ

Cunningham Hard 13/23 +11.2
Harris 9/18 +1.2
Robinson Hard 4/8 +3.1
Jenkins Hard 2/8 -4.3
Duren Open 4/6 +0.6
Thompson 3/5 +0.6
Green Hard 2/5 +0.1
LeVert Open 1/4 -3.1
Stewart 1/3 -1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
ORL
DET
38/80 Field Goals 39/80
47.5% Field Goal % 48.8%
17/38 3-Pointers 10/28
44.7% 3-Point % 35.7%
16/30 Free Throws 28/35
53.3% Free Throw % 80.0%
58.5% True Shooting % 60.8%
48 Total Rebounds 56
8 Offensive 16
25 Defensive 33
21 Assists 20
1.31 Assist/TO Ratio 1.18
16 Turnovers 17
12 Steals 10
5 Blocks 5
26 Fouls 21
36 Points in Paint 48
14 Fast Break Pts 19
22 Points off TOs 19
21 Second Chance Pts 22
22 Bench Points 18
0 Largest Lead 17
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Cade Cunningham
45 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 43.6 MIN
+31.83
2
Paolo Banchero
45 PTS · 9 REB · 7 AST · 40.8 MIN
+26.1
3
Tobias Harris
23 PTS · 8 REB · 1 AST · 31.5 MIN
+17.03
4
Ausar Thompson
6 PTS · 15 REB · 6 AST · 36.4 MIN
+16.59
5
Anthony Black
19 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 39.1 MIN
+14.2
6
Desmond Bane
18 PTS · 5 REB · 1 AST · 33.9 MIN
+12.62
7
Wendell Carter Jr.
9 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 34.4 MIN
+11.68
8
Jalen Suggs
10 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 37.3 MIN
+11.36
9
Jalen Duren
12 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 27.6 MIN
+11.15
10
Duncan Robinson
12 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 25.0 MIN
+7.26
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 T. Harris step out-of-bounds TURNOVER (1 TO) 109–116
Q4 0:08 T. Harris REBOUND (Off:1 Def:7) 109–116
Q4 0:13 MISS P. Banchero 30' pullup 3PT 109–116
Q4 0:22 T. Harris Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 109–116
Q4 0:22 T. Harris Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 109–115
Q4 0:22 J. Suggs personal FOUL (2 PF) (Harris 2 FT) 109–114
Q4 0:30 W. Carter Jr. offensive foul TURNOVER (1 TO) 109–114
Q4 0:30 W. Carter Jr. offensive FOUL (5 PF) 109–114
Q4 0:32 C. Cunningham 15' fadeaway Jump Shot (45 PTS) 109–114
Q4 0:43 A. Thompson REBOUND (Off:4 Def:11) 109–112
Q4 0:45 MISS T. Harris 12' pullup Shot 109–112
Q4 1:09 P. Banchero 25' 3PT (45 PTS) (J. Suggs 5 AST) 109–112
Q4 1:12 TEAM offensive REBOUND 106–112
Q4 1:13 J. Duren BLOCK (2 BLK) 106–112
Q4 1:13 MISS P. Banchero 6' driving Layup - blocked 106–112

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 43.6m
45
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+29.7

Cunningham was an unstoppable offensive maestro, exploding for 45 points on 13-of-23 shooting to generate a staggering +35.0 Offense credit. He relentlessly attacked the defense, earning 14 trips to the line (14-of-14 FT) while burying 5-of-8 from deep. Although his high usage resulted in 6 turnovers, his ability to lock down his matchup (6-of-15 shooting allowed) capped off a brilliant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 14/14 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.2%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.6m
Scoring +38.4
Creation +3.9
Shot Making +9.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -13.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Ausar Thompson 36.4m
6
pts
15
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.0

Thompson was an absolute defensive terror, racking up 5 steals and 2 blocks to drive a colossal +18.2 Defense credit. While his scoring was muted (6 points on 5 shots), he dominated the glass with 15 rebounds and acted as a connective hub with 6 assists. The 5 turnovers were a blemish, but his relentless motor (+5.5 Hustle) and chaotic two-way playmaking completely shaped the game.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +18.1
Defense +12.5
Turnovers -10.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 5
S Tobias Harris 31.5m
23
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.5

Harris stepped up as a highly efficient offensive engine, pouring in 23 points on 9-of-18 shooting to generate a +14.6 Offense credit. He supplemented his scoring with strong work on the glass (8 rebounds) and active hands (2 steals), though his primary defensive matchup torched him for 9-of-13 shooting. Despite the defensive leakage, his reliable mid-range touch and rebounding volume provided crucial stability.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Scoring +15.7
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +7.2
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 27.6m
12
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Duren sacrificed his usual scoring volume (12 points on just 6 shots) but remained hyper-efficient (67% FG) to secure a +13.1 Offense credit. His interior presence was formidable, swatting 2 shots and suffocating his matchups into a dismal 4-of-13 shooting performance. While 3 turnovers slightly dampened his offensive flow, his flawless free-throw shooting (4-of-4) and rim protection anchored the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +11.4
Defense -2.7
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Duncan Robinson 24.9m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Robinson delivered exactly what is expected of him, spacing the floor by burying 3-of-6 from beyond the arc to drive a solid +8.4 Offense credit. He offered very little outside of his perimeter stroke, managing just 1 assist and minimal defensive resistance (opponents shot 4-of-8 against him). His value remains entirely tethered to his jumper, which was highly efficient in this contest.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring +8.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 24.9m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-17.3

LeVert's offensive nightmare continued, as he managed just 2 points on a dismal 1-of-4 shooting to drag his Offense credit into the red (-0.1). He failed to generate any real momentum as a playmaker (2 assists to 1 turnover) and offered little resistance defensively (-1.1 Defense). This performance perfectly encapsulated his ongoing late-season struggle to anchor the second unit efficiently.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Scoring -0.5
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense -3.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Stewart operated as a pure physical enforcer, prioritizing screening (4 screen assists) and rim protection over scoring volume (5 points on 3 shots). His defensive impact was superb, contesting 8 shots and suffocating his matchups into a 1-of-5 shooting line to drive a +3.2 Defense credit. While his offensive output was minimal (+5.7 Offense), his blue-collar dirty work set a physical tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +5.4
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.6

Jenkins endured a brutal shooting night, managing just 6 points on a frigid 2-of-8 from the floor and missing all five of his three-point attempts. His inability to find the bottom of the net severely limited his Offense credit (+2.5), and he provided zero rebounds or hustle stats to compensate. He did manage to keep his defensive matchup quiet (1-of-3 shooting), but his offensive volatility was the defining story.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Green provided a modest spark off the bench, chipping in 5 points while generating a +5.2 Defense credit through active positioning. His perimeter shot was shaky (1-of-4 from deep), limiting his offensive ceiling (+3.3 Offense), and his primary matchup found success shooting 4-of-7. Despite the defensive leakage on the ball, his overall rotational awareness kept his impact positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 40.8m
45
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+28.9

Banchero was an absolute offensive juggernaut, pouring in 45 points on 17-of-31 shooting to drive a massive +24.6 Offense credit. His perimeter stroke was lethal (6-of-11 from deep), punishing defenders who sagged, though his aggressive playmaking did result in 6 turnovers. He paired this scoring explosion with active hands defensively, generating 4 deflections and 2 steals to fuel a +7.1 Defense score.

Shooting
FG 17/31 (54.8%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 5/12 (41.7%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 43.3%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Scoring +32.5
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +11.2
Hustle +9.5
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -14.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 6
S Jalen Suggs 37.3m
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.2

Suggs made his mark as a defensive pest, generating 5 deflections and 3 steals to power a robust +7.2 Defense credit. He was relatively quiet as a scorer (10 points on 4-of-9 shooting) but kept the offense flowing with 5 assists and zero live-ball mistakes (only 1 turnover). His relentless point-of-attack pressure held his matchups to 4-of-9 shooting, perfectly encapsulating his two-way connector role.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 11.2%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Scoring +5.9
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.2

Carter Jr. sacrificed scoring volume (9 points on just 4 shots) to operate as a high-post connector, dishing out 4 assists to fuel a +10.7 Offense credit. His rim protection was the defining feature of his night, swatting 3 shots and contesting 7 looks to anchor a +4.0 Defense score. Despite a quiet night on the glass (4 rebounds), his selective offense and interior enforcement were highly effective.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Scoring +7.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Desmond Bane 33.9m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Bane offset a slightly inefficient shooting night (6-of-15 overall) by burying 4-of-10 from beyond the arc to anchor his +9.0 Offense credit. His true value came through gritty peripheral work, racking up 3 steals and 4 deflections to drive a +5.2 Defense score. While his primary matchup found success (8-of-12 shooting), Bane's disruptive hands and loose-ball recoveries (+4.6 Hustle) kept his overall impact firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -4.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +11.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jamal Cain 24.7m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Cain struggled to find an offensive rhythm, managing just 5 points on 1-of-4 shooting while missing four free throws (3-of-7). His inability to convert at the line suppressed his Offense credit (-0.1), though he did chip in slightly on the glass with 4 rebounds. The lack of perimeter touch (0-of-1 from deep, 14% over his last five) continues to limit his floor-spacing utility.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.1

Black delivered a two-way masterclass, doubling his season scoring average with 19 points fueled by a scorching 4-of-6 from deep (+10.7 Offense). He was an absolute menace on the other end, suffocating his matchups into 3-of-12 shooting while racking up 5 deflections and 3 steals. This combination of perimeter shot-making and lockdown coverage (+6.2 Defense) highlighted his evolution into a primary two-way engine.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Scoring +15.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Da Silva struggled to make an imprint, managing just 3 points on 1-of-4 shooting as his perimeter touch (0-of-2 from deep) continued a recent cold spell. His defensive assignment routinely got the better of him, converting 8-of-13 shots when he was the primary defender, leading to a negative Defense credit (-0.5). With zero assists and minimal peripheral stats, it was a quiet, ineffective shift.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 13.6m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-19.1

Bitadze was a complete non-factor offensively, failing to score a single point and attempting just one shot, which cratered his Offense credit (-4.4). He did manage to provide some interior resistance in his 13 minutes, swatting 2 shots and contesting 4 looks to salvage a +1.9 Defense score. However, grabbing just 1 rebound as a backup center severely limited his overall utility.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2