GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 33.8m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Empty scoring masked a deeply negative overall impact, as his offensive contributions were outweighed by poor rotational awareness. While he generated some second-chance opportunities, his tendency to stall the offense with contested mid-range looks disrupted the team's flow. He was repeatedly caught ball-watching on the weak side, bleeding points during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 33.8m -16.9
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 29.6m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely tanked his offensive value and allowed the defense to pack the paint. Despite generating extra possessions through commendable hustle, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips resulted in a catastrophic net rating. Opponents actively dared him to shoot, and the resulting bricks fueled long rebounds and fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense -6.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 29.6m -14.8
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Elite shot selection and disciplined finishing around the basket drove a highly efficient offensive showing. He anchored the paint effectively, forcing opponents into contested floaters rather than conceding deep post position. His refusal to force bad shots ensured every touch resulted in a high-value outcome.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -41.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 27.8m -14.0
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 27.8m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Strong point-of-attack defense kept his value afloat despite a noticeable dip in his usual interior finishing. He settled heavily for perimeter looks, which limited his ability to collapse the defense and create for others. The over-reliance on the three-ball ultimately resulted in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 27.8m -13.9
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S LaMelo Ball 26.8m
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.1

Reckless shot selection and forced initiation attempts severely damaged the team's half-court efficiency. His inability to finish through contact resulted in a barrage of empty possessions that directly fed the opponent's transition game. Even a solid effort in the passing lanes couldn't salvage a performance defined by wasted offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 26.8m -13.3
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Sion James 25.5m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A complete inability to connect from beyond the arc allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter. He tried to compensate with physical on-ball defense, but the offensive spacing issues he created were too severe to overcome. Every missed deep ball acted as a momentum killer that stalled the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 25.5m -12.8
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Mann 20.8m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

A sudden surge in perimeter aggressiveness provided a much-needed scoring punch, but it came at the cost of offensive flow. He hunted his own shot relentlessly, which occasionally bailed out late-clock situations but also froze out teammates. The defensive indifference meant he gave back nearly everything he generated on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 20.8m -10.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Ruthless efficiency on drives to the basket maximized his offensive value and punished lazy closeouts. By eliminating low-percentage mid-range pull-ups, he generated a massive positive swing in just a fraction of the game. His relentless downhill pressure constantly compromised the opposing defense's shell.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 17.4m -8.7
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Operated strictly as a low-usage finisher, converting his few opportunities without expanding his offensive footprint. A lack of high-motor rebounding or disruptive defensive plays kept his overall influence muted. He was largely a non-factor in the half-court, resulting in a slightly negative net rating during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 15.4m -7.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game, looking hesitant when presented with open catch-and-shoot opportunities. While his defensive positioning remained sound, his offensive passivity allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the primary actions. The lack of assertiveness ultimately dragged his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 15.0m -7.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Miles McBride 39.1m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

A flawless display of perimeter marksmanship punished defensive rotations and skyrocketed his offensive metrics. He paired this sudden scoring eruption with suffocating on-ball pressure that completely neutralized his primary matchup. This two-way explosion represented a massive departure from his recent slump.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/5 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.0%
USG% 12.4%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.8
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 39.1m -19.6
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 35.6m
18
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.7

Elite point-of-attack pressure and relentless hustle plays set the tone for a massive positive impact. He capitalized on high-quality looks inside the arc rather than settling for contested jumpers. Disrupting the opponent's offensive rhythm proved just as valuable as his highly efficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +6.1
Defense +10.0
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 35.6m -17.8
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jalen Brunson 34.0m
33
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Massive scoring volume heavily inflated his box metrics, but the sheer number of missed field goals dragged down his overall efficiency. He commanded constant double-teams in the pick-and-roll, yet his defensive limitations allowed opponents to claw back much of the value he generated. The heavy isolation diet ultimately yielded a surprisingly modest net rating.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 40.8%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 34.0m -17.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 33.8m
22
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+13.8

Punished defensive sagging by knocking down perimeter shots at an uncharacteristically high clip to spike his offensive value. His trademark transition pushes and loose-ball recoveries kept the momentum firmly on his side. A career-night shooting from deep masked any minor defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +29.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +30.7
Avg player in 33.8m -16.9
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
19
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.2

Paint presence and interior gravity anchored a solid overall rating despite a completely cold night from beyond the arc. He compensated for the perimeter misses by anchoring the drop coverage effectively. Forcing the issue inside rather than settling for deep looks salvaged his offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 32.4m -16.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Generated a highly positive net rating entirely through elite rim protection and vertical spacing. Despite not attempting a single shot, his sheer physical presence deterred countless drives and altered the geometry of the court. He served as a pure defensive anchor, perfectly executing his role without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +48.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 17.2m -8.5
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyler Kolek 15.4m
7
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Managed the game effectively with high-percentage shot selection, taking only what the defense conceded. However, his overall impact remained neutral due to a lack of disruptive plays on the defensive end. He functioned strictly as a caretaker, avoiding mistakes but failing to tilt the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +43.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 15.4m -7.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Efficient isolation scoring provided a brief offensive spark, but defensive bleeding quickly erased those gains. He was repeatedly targeted in switch actions, leading to a negative defensive impact that flattened his overall rating. The microwave offense simply couldn't outpace the points surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 14.0m -7.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Completely vanished on the offensive end, failing to generate any rim pressure or floor spacing during his stint. His inability to impact the game physically resulted in a cratered net rating. Opponents openly ignored him on the perimeter, severely clogging the paint for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 12.1m -6.1
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a brief burst of interior energy that yielded a slight positive bump in defensive metrics. His limited minutes were defined by a single missed rotation, but he otherwise held his ground in the paint. The microscopic sample size prevented any meaningful statistical accumulation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged purely developmental minutes at the end of the rotation without registering any significant actions. His neutral rating reflects a stint spent entirely floating on the perimeter. He simply filled space while the primary ball-handlers initiated the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 2.1m -1.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Capitalized immediately on his lone touch by drilling an open perimeter look to spike his brief box score impact. The flawless shooting execution in garbage time resulted in an artificially high net rating for his short stint. He stayed out of the way and executed his single opportunity perfectly.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 2.1m -1.0
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0