DET

2025-26 Season

CADE CUNNINGHAM

Detroit Pistons | Guard | 6-6
Cade Cunningham
24.5 PPG
5.6 RPG
9.9 APG
34.4 MPG
+4.1 Impact

Cunningham produces at an above average rate for a 34-minute workload. 3.7 turnovers per game cost 7.2 points of value nightly. Elite defensive value (+3.6/game) is a major strength.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+4.1
Scoring +15.0
Points 24.5 PPG × +1.00 = +24.5
Missed 2PT 6.4/g × -0.78 = -5.0
Missed 3PT 3.8/g × -0.87 = -3.3
Missed FT 1.2/g × -1.00 = -1.2
Creation +6.8
Assists 9.9/g × +0.50 = +5.0
Off. Rebounds 1.4/g × +1.26 = +1.8
Turnovers -7.2
Turnovers 3.7/g × -1.95 = -7.2
Defense +3.6
Steals 1.5/g × +2.30 = +3.4
Blocks 0.9/g × +0.90 = +0.8
Def. Rebounds 4.2/g × +0.30 = +1.3
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.5
Contested Shots 5.0/g × +0.20 = +1.0
Deflections 2.5/g × +0.65 = +1.6
Loose Balls 0.9/g × +0.60 = +0.5
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.3
Raw Impact +21.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −17.6
Net Impact
+4.1
95th pctl vs Guards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 96th
24.5 PPG
Efficiency 74th
58.0% TS
Playmaking 100th
9.9 APG
Rebounding 95th
5.6 RPG
Rim Protection 81th
0.15/min
Hustle 48th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 4th
0.11/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A staggering, almost historic offensive burden defined Cade Cunningham's opening stretch, pulling his nightly value between brilliant orchestration and reckless inefficiency. He operated as the absolute sun of his team's universe, relentlessly attacking defensive shells but frequently bleeding value through forced jumpers. Look no further than 10/26 vs BOS, where his 25 points were entirely wiped out by a -9.1 impact score because underlying sloppy ball security dragged his offense into the mud. Then came the absolute spectacle of 11/10 vs WAS. He hoisted an absurd 45 shot attempts to score 46 points, yet somehow willed his way to a massive +18.8 impact by relentlessly attacking the teeth of the defense. Conversely, he found ways to win on the margins even when his jumper completely abandoned him. During 01/19 vs BOS, a miserable 4-for-17 shooting night for just 16 points would normally sink a team, but Cunningham salvaged a +3.9 impact through elite floor generalship and high-level defensive execution. It is a chaotic, exhausting brand of basketball, but his sheer playmaking volume keeps the engine running.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by a volatile pendulum swing between masterful offensive orchestration and crippling shot selection. When Cunningham hunted his own offense recklessly, the hidden costs heavily outweighed his box score production. Look no further than 12/18 vs DAL. Despite racking up 29 points, his massive shot volume and 12-for-30 shooting dragged his net impact down to a dismal -6.3. He hit an even lower floor during 01/15 vs PHX, where an abysmal 3-for-16 shooting night and a tendency to settle for contested jumpers generated a brutal -23.4 impact score. Yet, when he prioritized dissecting coverages over forcing shots, his true value shined through. During 02/01 vs BKN, he scored a modest 18 points but posted a massive +18.6 impact score. By systematically dismantling the opposing defense out of the pick-and-roll, his elite playmaking generated immense positive value without requiring him to dominate the scoring column.

Extreme volatility defined this stretch for Cade Cunningham, bouncing violently between masterful orchestration and self-destructive inefficiency. When he dialed in his off-the-dribble creation and half-court management, he was virtually unstoppable, as seen on 02/11 vs TOR when he posted a +20.9 impact score behind 28 points and nine assists. Heavy offensive burdens frequently triggered hidden costs, however. Look no further than 03/05 vs SAS; despite pouring in 26 points, his impact plummeted to -12.8 because massive shot volume masked severe inefficiency and live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. He can also dominate without forcing shots. On 03/13 vs MEM, he attempted just 11 field goals for 17 points, but his relentless two-way effort and 15 assists drove a +11.6 impact score, making him the absolute engine of the offense. To elevate from a high-usage star to a reliable winning focal point, Cunningham must permanently eradicate the sloppy ball security and forced attempts in traffic.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Volatile for his role. Cunningham has noticeable ups and downs, with scoring moving ~8 points between games.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 58% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Cunningham consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 12 games. Longest cold streak: 4 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 62 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

D. Daniels 102.2 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 20
D. Mitchell 90.3 poss
FG% 27.8%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.16
PTS 14
S. Castle 88.4 poss
FG% 25.9%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.19
PTS 17
J. Tyson 74.6 poss
FG% 27.8%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 17
I. Okoro 61.8 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 30.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 17
P. Watson 60.8 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 15
O. Anunoby 53.5 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 13
J. Walsh 52.7 poss
FG% 30.8%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.32
PTS 17
A. Nembhard 52.2 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 10
R. Westbrook 51.7 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

D. Mitchell 78.0 poss
FG% 53.8%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.21
PTS 16
D. Daniels 76.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 10
D. White 71.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 41.7%
PPP 0.31
PTS 22
J. Tyson 70.9 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.28
PTS 20
P. Watson 59.0 poss
FG% 12.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 5
J. Suggs 54.4 poss
FG% 23.1%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 8
O. Anunoby 44.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
S. Barnes 43.2 poss
FG% 18.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4
B. Miller 38.0 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.29
PTS 11
D. Powell 36.9 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

61
Games
24.5
PPG
5.6
RPG
9.9
APG
1.5
SPG
0.9
BPG
46.1
FG%
34.6
3P%
81.4
FT%
34.4
MPG

GAME LOG

61 games played