Sacramento Kings vs Detroit Pistons Match Player Stats
The sacramento kings vs detroit pistons match player stats from December 24, 2025, tell the story of an offensive battle in which the Detroit Pistons defeated the Sacramento Kings 136-127 at Golden 1 Center in Sacramento, California. DeMar DeRozan led all scorers with 37 points, while Tobias Harris paced Detroit with 24 points. Russell Westbrook added 27 points for Sacramento, but Detroit’s superior shooting efficiency and impressive ball movement proved decisive. The game featured 263 combined points, 80 total rebounds, and 64 assists, providing plenty of detail for fans who want to understand how the contest unfolded beyond the final score.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team shooting numbers, rebounding, turnovers, assists, and the statistical differences that shaped the result. It also explains how to interpret the box score, which players made the biggest contributions, and what the available numbers reveal about both teams.
Match details
- Matchup: Detroit Pistons vs. Sacramento Kings
- Date: December 24, 2025
- Venue: Golden 1 Center, Sacramento, California
- Attendance: 17,832
- Final score: Detroit Pistons 136, Sacramento Kings 127
- Game status: Final
- Game ID: 401810276
- Data source: ESPN game information supplied for this analysis
The figures below are based on the supplied ESPN webpage text. Where individual player statistics were not included in that material, this article does not invent missing figures.
Sacramento Kings vs Detroit Pistons Match Player Stats: Final Score and Team Comparison
Detroit secured a nine-point victory by combining efficient shooting with a much higher number of assists. Sacramento remained competitive through individual scoring, offensive rebounding, steals, and free-throw accuracy, but the Kings could not match Detroit’s overall shooting percentage.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Detroit Pistons | Sacramento Kings |
| First | 37 | 24 |
| Second | 38 | 34 |
| Third | 40 | 39 |
| Fourth | 21 | 30 |
| Total | 136 | 127 |
Detroit established control in the first quarter by scoring 37 points while holding Sacramento to 24. That 13-point opening advantage proved important when the Kings made their strongest push later in the game.
The Pistons added 38 points in the second quarter, extending their lead despite Sacramento scoring 34. At halftime, Detroit had 75 points compared with Sacramento’s 58, giving the visitors a 17-point advantage.
The third quarter was the highest-scoring period for both teams. Detroit scored 40 points, while Sacramento responded with 39. Although the Kings nearly matched Detroit’s production, they did not significantly reduce the deficit.
Sacramento won the fourth quarter 30-21. That late improvement demonstrated the Kings’ ability to keep attacking, but the earlier scoring gap was too large to overcome.
The quarter-by-quarter numbers reveal an important distinction: Sacramento finished strongly, but Detroit built the foundation for victory before the final period.
Complete team statistical comparison
| Statistical category | Detroit Pistons | Sacramento Kings |
| Points | 136 | 127 |
| Field goals | 51/95 | 42/92 |
| Field-goal percentage | 54% | 46% |
| Three-pointers | 14/32 | 11/33 |
| Three-point percentage | 44% | 33% |
| Free throws | 20/28 | 32/37 |
| Free-throw percentage | 71% | 86% |
| Total rebounds | 42 | 42 |
| Offensive rebounds | 16 | 19 |
| Defensive rebounds | 26 | 23 |
| Assists | 38 | 26 |
| Turnovers | 15 | 13 |
| Steals | 9 | 12 |
| Blocks | 8 | 5 |
| Personal fouls | 23 | 25 |
Detroit’s strongest advantages were shooting efficiency, three-point accuracy, assists, and blocks. Sacramento performed better at the free-throw line and recorded more steals and offensive rebounds.
The teams finished with the same number of total rebounds, so the result cannot be explained by overall rebounding volume alone. Detroit’s advantage came from how efficiently it converted offensive possessions into points.
The shooting difference is especially important. Detroit made nine more field goals than Sacramento despite attempting only three additional shots. That gap helps explain how the Pistons won without needing a large advantage in total possessions.
Detroit Pistons Player Stats: Who Led the Victory?
Detroit’s scoring was supported by several key performers rather than one player carrying the entire offensive burden. Tobias Harris led the team in points, Jalen Duren provided a strong interior presence, and Cade Cunningham contributed both scoring and playmaking.
Tobias Harris: 24 points
Tobias Harris was Detroit’s leading scorer with 24 points. His production gave the Pistons a reliable scoring option while the team maintained its offensive rhythm.
A team can benefit significantly when its leading scorer is supported by other players who can create their own opportunities. Detroit’s final score and assist total suggest that the offense was not dependent on a single source of production.
Harris’s 24 points led the listed Detroit performers, although the supplied information does not include his field-goal attempts, shooting splits, rebounds, or minutes. Those details would be necessary to evaluate his scoring efficiency more precisely.
Jalen Duren: 23 points and 13 rebounds
Jalen Duren recorded 23 points and 13 rebounds, producing a double-double.
His performance was important because interior scoring and rebounding can influence both ends of the court. Points around the basket can provide a reliable alternative to perimeter shooting, while rebounds help a team secure possession and limit second chances.
Duren’s 13 rebounds also provide a useful individual contrast with the team totals. Detroit recorded 42 rebounds overall, and his contribution accounted for a substantial portion of that total.
The available data does not separate Duren’s offensive and defensive rebounds. Therefore, his exact contribution to second-chance opportunities cannot be established from the supplied figures alone.
Cade Cunningham: 23 points and 14 assists
Cade Cunningham finished with 23 points and 14 assists, making him one of the most influential players in the matchup.
His assist total stands out because Detroit recorded 38 assists as a team. Cunningham’s 14 assists represented a major share of that total and indicate that he played a central role in creating scoring opportunities for teammates.
The difference between the teams was substantial. Detroit recorded 38 assists, compared with Sacramento’s 26. That 12-assist advantage points to a meaningful difference in how the teams generated their offense.
Cunningham’s combination of scoring and playmaking made him a particularly important contributor. Defenses must account for a player who can threaten the basket himself while also finding teammates in advantageous positions.
However, assists alone do not reveal every aspect of playmaking. Turnovers, potential assists, shot quality, and the effectiveness of the resulting attempts would provide a fuller picture.
Ausar Thompson: 19 points
Ausar Thompson contributed 19 points, giving Detroit another significant scoring option.
His production helped the Pistons distribute the scoring load across several players. Harris scored 24, while Duren and Cunningham added 23 apiece. Thompson’s 19 points gave Detroit four listed performers with at least 19 points.
This distribution matters because it can make an offense harder to defend. When several players can contribute consistently, opponents have fewer opportunities to focus their defensive attention on one scorer.
The supplied data does not include Thompson’s rebounds, assists, steals, or shooting splits, so those categories cannot be assessed reliably here.
Detroit’s supporting cast
The supplied starting lineup for Detroit consisted of:
- Tobias Harris
- Duncan Robinson
- Jalen Duren
- Cade Cunningham
- Ausar Thompson
The listed bench players were Isaiah Stewart, Javonte Green, Caris LeVert, Jaden Ivey, Paul Reed, Marcus Sasser, and Daniss Jenkins.
These names establish the players listed in the supplied game information, but the data does not provide complete individual box-score lines for every reserve. It would be misleading to assign specific point totals, minutes, rebounds, or shooting percentages to players whose figures were not supplied.
The broader team numbers nevertheless show that Detroit operated efficiently. The Pistons made 51 of 95 field-goal attempts, shot 44% from three-point range, and accumulated 38 assists. Those figures indicate that their offensive production extended beyond the four highlighted scorers.
Sacramento Kings Player Stats: DeMar DeRozan Leads the Scoring
Sacramento had several productive individual performances, particularly from DeMar DeRozan and Russell Westbrook. The Kings also received a double-double from Precious Achiuwa.
Despite those contributions, Sacramento finished nine points behind Detroit. Its lower overall shooting percentage and smaller assist total were important differences in the final comparison.
DeMar DeRozan: 37 points
DeMar DeRozan led all players in the supplied statistics with 37 points.
His scoring output was the most prominent individual performance of the game. A player reaching 37 points gives his team a substantial offensive contribution, especially in a contest where both sides score more than 120 points.
DeRozan’s total exceeded Detroit’s leading scorer, Harris, by 13 points. He also scored 14 more points than the combined difference between the teams’ final scores would suggest at first glance, illustrating how a high individual scoring total does not automatically guarantee a win.
Basketball outcomes depend on the contributions of the entire lineup. A player can score efficiently while the team struggles to generate enough points elsewhere or allows opponents to score at an even greater rate.
The available data does not include DeRozan’s field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, free throws made, or minutes played. His 37 points establish his scoring volume, but they are not enough to calculate his individual shooting efficiency.
Russell Westbrook: 27 points, 6 rebounds, and 4 assists
Russell Westbrook recorded 27 points, six rebounds, and four assists.
His 27 points made him Sacramento’s second-highest listed scorer. His six rebounds also added value beyond scoring, while four assists show that he contributed to teammates’ opportunities.
Westbrook and DeRozan combined for 64 points. That is a substantial share of Sacramento’s 127-point total, highlighting how much of the team’s listed scoring came from its two leading offensive contributors.
The numbers also raise a useful analytical question: how much support did Sacramento receive from the rest of its lineup? The supplied data lists other contributors, including Achiuwa and Nique Clifford, but does not provide complete individual statistics for every player.
Without those details, it is not possible to determine exactly how Sacramento’s scoring was distributed across the full rotation.
Precious Achiuwa: 15 points and 12 rebounds
Precious Achiuwa finished with 15 points and 12 rebounds, recording a double-double.
His performance gave Sacramento another productive interior contributor. The combination of points and rebounds can be particularly useful when a team is trying to compensate for an opponent’s shooting advantage.
Sacramento recorded 19 offensive rebounds, three more than Detroit. Offensive rebounds can create additional scoring opportunities after missed shots, helping a team remain competitive even when its shooting percentage is lower.
Achiuwa’s 12 rebounds contributed to Sacramento’s overall rebounding effort, although the supplied figures do not specify how many of his rebounds came on offense.
The Kings ultimately tied Detroit in total rebounds at 42 apiece. This indicates that Sacramento was competitive on the glass, even though the team lost the shooting and assist comparisons.
Nique Clifford: 14 points
Nique Clifford added 14 points for Sacramento.
His scoring provided support behind DeRozan, Westbrook, and Achiuwa. In a game decided by nine points, contributions from secondary scorers can matter, particularly when the leading players already account for a large share of the offense.
Clifford’s 14 points were a meaningful part of Sacramento’s overall production. However, the available data does not include his field-goal attempts, minutes, rebounds, or defensive statistics.
Those missing figures limit a more detailed assessment of his efficiency and all-around impact.
Sacramento’s supporting cast
The supplied starting lineup for Sacramento consisted of:
- Precious Achiuwa
- Keegan Murray
- Maxime Raynaud
- Russell Westbrook
- DeMar DeRozan
The listed bench players were Dylan Cardwell, Dennis Schroder, Malik Monk, Keon Ellis, Nique Clifford, Doug McDermott, and Dario Saric.
As with Detroit’s reserves, the names alone should not be treated as proof of individual playing time or production. A complete player-by-player comparison would require the actual minutes and statistical lines for each participant.
The team totals still offer a clear picture of Sacramento’s approach. The Kings made 32 of 37 free throws, recorded 12 steals, and secured 19 offensive rebounds. Those strengths helped keep the game competitive, but they did not erase Detroit’s advantage in field-goal percentage and ball movement.
Head-to-Head Player Comparison
The most useful player comparisons focus on both individual production and the way each player’s role fits into the team result.
| Detroit Pistons | Key statistics | Sacramento Kings | Key statistics |
| Tobias Harris | 24 points | DeMar DeRozan | 37 points |
| Jalen Duren | 23 points, 13 rebounds | Russell Westbrook | 27 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists |
| Cade Cunningham | 23 points, 14 assists | Precious Achiuwa | 15 points, 12 rebounds |
| Ausar Thompson | 19 points | Nique Clifford | 14 points |
These are comparisons of the leading listed performers, not a claim that each pair played the same position or had identical responsibilities.
Scoring: DeRozan delivered the highest total
DeRozan’s 37 points were the highest individual scoring total in the supplied data. Westbrook’s 27 points gave Sacramento a second major scoring performance.
Detroit’s listed leaders scored 24, 23, 23, and 19 points. That distribution gave the Pistons several productive options rather than relying on one dominant scorer.
Sacramento’s top two scorers combined for 64 points. Detroit’s four highlighted performers combined for 89 points. These totals are not a complete comparison of all players, but they illustrate the scoring contributions of the featured performers.
Playmaking: Cunningham’s 14 assists stood out
Cunningham’s 14 assists were the strongest listed playmaking performance. Detroit’s team total of 38 assists exceeded Sacramento’s 26 by 12.
A high assist total can indicate that a team is generating scoring opportunities through passing rather than depending entirely on individual shot creation. However, assists should be considered alongside shooting percentages and turnovers.
Detroit recorded 15 turnovers, two more than Sacramento’s 13. The Pistons therefore did not win because they protected the ball better in raw turnover count. Instead, they made better use of their offensive possessions, as reflected in their field-goal percentage and assist total.
Rebounding: Duren and Achiuwa both recorded double-doubles
Duren’s 13 rebounds and Achiuwa’s 12 rebounds highlighted the work of both frontcourts.
The teams finished with 42 rebounds apiece. Sacramento held the edge in offensive rebounds, 19-16, while Detroit collected more defensive rebounds, 26-23.
Those categories suggest different strengths. Sacramento created more second-chance opportunities from offensive rebounds, while Detroit collected more rebounds on the defensive end.
The data does not show every player’s rebound distribution, so it cannot establish exactly how each individual matchup influenced the final margin.
Shooting Efficiency: The Biggest Statistical Difference
The clearest team-level explanation for Detroit’s victory is shooting efficiency.
Detroit made 51 of 95 field-goal attempts, while Sacramento made 42 of 92. The supplied percentages were 54% for Detroit and 46% for Sacramento.
That eight-percentage-point gap is significant in a high-scoring game. Detroit converted a greater share of its attempts, allowing the Pistons to score more points without requiring a large advantage in total shots taken.
Field-goal production
Detroit made nine more field goals than Sacramento. The teams attempted 95 and 92 shots, respectively, a difference of just three attempts.
This is an important distinction because it shows that the outcome was not primarily driven by Detroit taking dramatically more shots. The Pistons converted their opportunities at a higher rate.
A useful way to read the box score is to separate volume from efficiency:
- Volume measures how many attempts a team takes.
- Efficiency measures how often those attempts become successful shots.
- Production reflects the points those successful shots create.
Detroit’s advantage was most evident in the second category.
Three-point shooting
Detroit made 14 of 32 three-point attempts, compared with Sacramento’s 11 of 33.
| Three-point statistic | Detroit | Sacramento |
| Made | 14 | 11 |
| Attempted | 32 | 33 |
| Percentage shown in supplied data | 44% | 33% |
Detroit made three more three-pointers despite taking one fewer attempt. Those additional successful shots were worth nine points, giving the Pistons a meaningful advantage from beyond the arc.
The difference also reflects the value of spacing. Successful perimeter shooting can force defenders to cover more of the floor, creating room for drives, interior scoring, and passing opportunities.
The available team data does not show the location or type of every shot, so it cannot prove that a specific defensive adjustment caused Detroit’s advantage. The shooting figures do, however, demonstrate that the Pistons converted their three-point attempts more effectively.
Free-throw shooting
Sacramento performed better at the free-throw line.
The Kings made 32 of 37 attempts, an 86% rate in the supplied data. Detroit made 20 of 28, or 71%.
Sacramento therefore scored 12 more points from free throws than Detroit. That advantage helped offset the Pistons’ superiority from the field.
Free throws are important because they provide scoring opportunities without requiring a made field goal. Strong free-throw shooting can keep a team close even when its offense struggles with jump shots.
Yet the Kings’ advantage at the line was not enough to overcome Detroit’s field-goal and three-point production.
The broader lesson is that no single shooting category explains a basketball result by itself. A complete assessment considers two-point shooting, three-point shooting, free throws, turnovers, rebounds, and the number of possessions available to each team.
Assists and Ball Movement: Why Detroit’s Offense Worked
Detroit recorded 38 assists, while Sacramento finished with 26. This 12-assist difference was one of the largest statistical gaps in the game.
An assist occurs when a pass directly leads to a made basket under the official scoring rules. Although assists do not measure every aspect of teamwork, they can provide useful evidence about how a team creates scoring chances.
Cunningham’s role as a playmaker
Cunningham’s 14 assists represented a substantial part of Detroit’s team total. His 23 points also meant he contributed directly to the scoreboard rather than serving only as a facilitator.
A playmaker who can score and pass creates a difficult decision for defenders. If they commit additional attention to stopping the ball handler, teammates may have more room to receive passes and shoot. If they stay close to other offensive players, the ball handler may have more room to attack.
This general principle helps explain why combined scoring and playmaking can be so valuable. It does not establish the exact defensive coverage Detroit faced in this particular game, which would require possession-level evidence.
Team passing versus individual scoring
Sacramento had the leading individual scorer, yet Detroit won by nine points. This contrast illustrates why a single player’s point total should not be used as a complete measure of team performance.
The Kings scored 127 points, but their 26 assists were 12 fewer than Detroit’s total. That does not automatically mean every Detroit basket came from better teamwork, since assists are influenced by shot type, individual creation, and scoring rules. Still, the difference is consistent with Detroit producing more assisted baskets overall.
When reviewing future box scores, compare the assist total with field-goal percentage and turnovers. Together, those numbers provide more context than assists alone.
Rebounding and Second-Chance Opportunities
Both teams collected 42 rebounds, but the breakdown reveals differences in how those rebounds were secured.
| Rebounding category | Detroit Pistons | Sacramento Kings |
| Offensive rebounds | 16 | 19 |
| Defensive rebounds | 26 | 23 |
| Total rebounds | 42 | 42 |
Sacramento’s three-rebound advantage on the offensive glass gave the Kings additional chances to recover their own misses. Detroit’s three-rebound advantage on defense suggests the Pistons collected more defensive boards.
Why offensive rebounds matter
An offensive rebound gives a team another opportunity after a missed field goal or free throw. Second chances can be particularly valuable when the first shot does not fall, because they may lead to another attempt without requiring the team to create an entirely new possession.
Sacramento’s 19 offensive rebounds were a positive statistic. However, offensive rebounding alone does not reveal how many second-chance points the Kings scored.
To measure that impact fully, a detailed box score or play-by-play breakdown would need to provide second-chance points and the number of possessions generated by offensive rebounds.
Defensive rebounds and ending possessions
A defensive rebound generally allows the defending team to end the opponent’s possession and begin its own offensive sequence.
Detroit recorded 26 defensive rebounds, compared with Sacramento’s 23. This advantage was modest, but it contributed to a different balance between offensive and defensive rebounding.
Because total rebounds were equal, neither team dominated the overall glass. The difference came in the type of rebounds collected, not the final total.
Turnovers, Steals, Blocks, and Defensive Activity
The defensive statistics show that Sacramento created more steals, while Detroit recorded more blocks.
| Defensive category | Detroit Pistons | Sacramento Kings |
| Steals | 9 | 12 |
| Blocks | 8 | 5 |
| Turnovers committed | 15 | 13 |
| Personal fouls | 23 | 25 |
Sacramento forced more turnovers through steals
Sacramento recorded 12 steals, three more than Detroit’s nine.
Steals can create transition opportunities because the defending team gains possession before the offense can fully organize its defense. They can also interrupt the opponent’s rhythm and generate momentum.
However, steals are only one measure of defensive pressure. A team may force difficult shots, contest attempts, or disrupt passing lanes without recording a steal.
Sacramento’s steal advantage did not translate into a victory, showing that defensive activity must be combined with effective offense to determine the final result.
Detroit recorded more blocks
Detroit registered eight blocks, while Sacramento recorded five.
Blocks can prevent shots from reaching the basket, but the number alone does not measure total rim protection. Defensive positioning, shot contests, and the opponent’s willingness to attack the paint also influence a team’s interior defense.
The three-block difference favored Detroit, but it should not be treated as proof that the Pistons controlled every interior matchup.
Turnovers tell a different story
Detroit committed 15 turnovers, compared with Sacramento’s 13. The Kings therefore had a two-turnover advantage.
This is a useful reminder that the team with fewer turnovers does not always win. Detroit’s shooting efficiency and assist advantage were strong enough to offset its slightly higher turnover count.
The relationship between turnovers and shot conversion is especially important. A team can protect possession reasonably well but still lose if it misses a large share of its attempts. Another team can commit more turnovers and win by converting a greater proportion of its remaining chances.
Fouls and free throws
Sacramento committed 25 personal fouls, while Detroit committed 23.
The Kings attempted 37 free throws compared with Detroit’s 28. Those numbers cannot be explained by personal fouls alone because free-throw opportunities depend on the type of foul, the shooting situation, and other game rules.
The box score nevertheless shows that Sacramento made effective use of its opportunities at the line. Its 86% free-throw percentage was considerably higher than Detroit’s 71%.
How Sacramento’s Fourth-Quarter Rally Fell Short
Sacramento scored 30 points in the fourth quarter, while Detroit managed 21. The Kings won the period by nine points, matching the final margin of the game.
That does not mean the rally was enough to reverse the result. Detroit entered the fourth quarter with a substantial advantage built during the first three periods.
The first-half difference was especially important. Detroit scored 75 points in the opening two quarters, while Sacramento scored 58. A 17-point halftime lead gave the Pistons a cushion even when their offense slowed in the final period.
Sacramento’s fourth-quarter performance demonstrates why quarter-by-quarter scoring matters. A final score reveals who won, but the individual periods show when the gap developed and whether the trailing team made progress.
For analysts and fans, three questions are useful when evaluating a late rally:
- How large was the deficit entering the fourth quarter?
- Did the trailing team improve its shooting or create more possessions?
- Did the leading team maintain enough offensive production to protect its advantage?
In this game, Sacramento won the final quarter but could not make up for Detroit’s earlier scoring advantage. The supplied statistics do not include a detailed play-by-play timeline, so the exact sequence of scoring runs and late-game possessions cannot be established here.
What the Match Player Stats Reveal About Both Teams
The game provides several lessons for interpreting basketball performance beyond the headline score.
Detroit: Efficient scoring and shared creation
Detroit’s 54% field-goal percentage and 44% three-point percentage were central strengths. The team also recorded 38 assists, demonstrating a large advantage in assisted scoring opportunities.
Four highlighted Detroit players scored at least 19 points. That balance gave the offense several productive options and reduced its dependence on a single leading scorer.
The Pistons did commit two more turnovers than Sacramento, so their victory was not based on winning every statistical category. Instead, they excelled in the categories that most directly supported their scoring output.
Sacramento: Strong individual scoring and free throws
Sacramento received 37 points from DeRozan and 27 from Westbrook. Achiuwa’s double-double added production in the paint and on the glass, while Clifford supplied another 14 points.
The Kings also made 86% of their free throws and recorded more steals and offensive rebounds. These were meaningful strengths, even though they were not sufficient to overcome Detroit’s field-goal efficiency.
The biggest concern in the supplied team statistics is the combination of a 46% field-goal percentage and 26 assists. Sacramento scored 127 points, but Detroit produced nine more points while shooting more efficiently.
The importance of reading the whole box score
A box score becomes more useful when individual statistics are connected to team results.
For example:
- Points show scoring volume, but not necessarily efficiency.
- Rebounds show possession recovery, but not automatically second-chance points.
- Assists show recorded passing contributions, but not every form of playmaking.
- Steals and blocks show certain defensive events, but not the full quality of a team’s defense.
- Turnovers measure lost possessions, but their impact depends partly on how efficiently the team scores when it keeps the ball.
The most reliable interpretation combines these measures rather than treating any one statistic as a complete explanation.
How to Analyze a Basketball Box Score Step by Step
Readers who want to evaluate future matchups can use a simple process that works across NBA games.
Step 1: Confirm the game and final score
Check the date, teams, venue, and game status before analyzing player performance. NBA teams can meet several times in one season, and statistics from different games should not be combined.
For this matchup, the supplied data identifies Game ID 401810276 and a December 24, 2025, final score of Detroit 136, Sacramento 127.
Step 2: Identify the leading scorers
Start with the highest point totals, then compare them with rebounds, assists, and shooting efficiency when those details are available.
Here, DeRozan led with 37 points, while Harris led Detroit with 24. Westbrook’s 27 points and Cunningham’s 23 points with 14 assists added important context.
Step 3: Compare shooting percentages
Look at field-goal, three-point, and free-throw percentages separately.
This prevents a common mistake: assuming the team that made more free throws or scored more points from one area necessarily shot better overall.
Detroit’s advantage came from field-goal and three-point shooting. Sacramento’s advantage came from free-throw accuracy.
Step 4: Examine rebounds and turnovers
Total rebounds provide a quick overview, but offensive and defensive rebounds should also be compared. Turnovers help show how often teams lost possession before completing a scoring attempt.
In this game, total rebounds were tied, Sacramento collected more offensive rebounds, and Detroit recorded more defensive rebounds. Sacramento also committed fewer turnovers.
Step 5: Connect team statistics to the final score
Ask which statistical differences are large enough to help explain the result.
Detroit’s eight-percentage-point field-goal advantage, three additional three-pointers, and 12-assist lead stand out. Sacramento’s free-throw advantage helped narrow the scoring gap but did not eliminate it.
Step 6: Check the source for missing or conflicting details
Do not assume that every player named in a lineup or bench list has a confirmed statistical contribution. Verify individual minutes, shooting attempts, and other figures before publishing detailed player comparisons.
This step is especially important when data has been copied from multiple pages or combined with advertisements, standings, and upcoming fixtures.
Source Reliability and Statistical Limitations
The figures in this article were supplied from ESPN webpage text associated with Game ID 401810276. The source information includes the final score, team totals, selected individual performances, listed lineups, and game details.
The supplied data is sufficient to compare the teams’ major statistical strengths. It is not a complete individual box score for every player, however, and some limitations deserve attention.
First, several bench players are named without individual statistics. Their points, minutes, rebounds, and other contributions should not be inferred.
Second, the supplied game text includes surrounding information from other sections of the webpage. Such material can contain unrelated advertisements, standings, and future fixtures. These items should not be confused with statistics from the completed game.
Third, the supplied text includes a later matchup note stating that Detroit defeated Sacramento 139-116 on January 26, 2026. That is a separate game and should not be combined with the December 24 box score. The December game discussed here ended 136-127.
Fourth, the record figures and season-series note are preserved as supplied rather than independently reconstructed. Readers who need a verified historical record should consult the specific game’s official box score and recap.
The most important principle is to distinguish verified game-level numbers from interpretations. The final score and team totals support the main comparison, while missing individual details limit more granular conclusions.
For the original game record, see the ESPN box score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Sacramento Kings vs Detroit Pistons game on December 24, 2025?
The Detroit Pistons defeated the Sacramento Kings 136-127 at Golden 1 Center in Sacramento, California.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
DeMar DeRozan led all listed players with 37 points for Sacramento. Detroit’s leading scorer was Tobias Harris with 24 points.
3. What were Cade Cunningham’s stats against the Kings?
Cade Cunningham recorded 23 points and 14 assists, according to the supplied game statistics.
4. How many points and rebounds did Jalen Duren record?
Jalen Duren finished with 23 points and 13 rebounds, giving him a double-double.
5. Why did Detroit beat Sacramento?
Detroit shot more efficiently, making 54% of its field goals compared with Sacramento’s 46%. The Pistons also made more three-pointers and recorded 38 assists, 12 more than the Kings.
6. Where can readers check the complete player statistics?
Readers can consult the ESPN box score for the game’s detailed statistical record.
Conclusion
The sacramento kings vs detroit pistons match player stats show how Detroit earned a 136-127 road victory through efficient shooting, strong playmaking, and contributions from several leading scorers. Tobias Harris finished with 24 points, Jalen Duren recorded 23 points and 13 rebounds, and Cade Cunningham contributed 23 points and 14 assists. Ausar Thompson added 19 points to Detroit’s balanced attack.
Sacramento received an outstanding 37-point performance from DeMar DeRozan, 27 points from Russell Westbrook, and a double-double from Precious Achiuwa. The Kings also shot better from the free-throw line, recorded more steals, and collected more offensive rebounds.
The decisive statistical differences were Detroit’s 54% field-goal percentage, 44% three-point shooting, and 38 assists. Sacramento’s fourth-quarter rally reduced the margin, but the Pistons’ strong first half provided enough separation to secure the win.
The central lesson is that individual scoring totals tell only part of a basketball game’s story. Shooting efficiency, ball movement, rebounding patterns, turnovers, and quarter-by-quarter scoring all help explain why one team wins. In this matchup, Sacramento had the highest individual scorer, but Detroit produced the more effective overall offensive performance
