GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 35.6m
22
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.3

Overcame a cold night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking the rim and generating high-quality looks for teammates. His defensive versatility shined as he seamlessly switched across multiple positions to stifle drives. Strong hustle metrics reflect a blue-collar effort that kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 35.6m -19.0
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 31.7m
12
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.1

Shot selection was the primary culprit here, as he repeatedly forced contested threes early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of perimeter misses fueled long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities, tanking his net impact. Despite decent baseline hustle, his inability to find the bottom of the net derailed the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 31.7m -17.1
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 31.6m
27
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Scorched the nets from deep, punishing defenders who dared to go under screens. His offensive gravity warped the opposing defense, while his length disrupted passing lanes on the other end to generate a strong defensive rating. Continuing a highly efficient streak, his shot-making was the engine that drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 31.6m -16.9
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Maintained his absurdly efficient finishing streak, but simply didn't demand the ball enough to tilt the math. While his rim protection and hustle metrics were excellent, his overall impact suffered from offensive passivity. The defense sagged off him entirely, clogging the driving lanes for the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 29.6m -15.9
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 28.9m
16
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brutal shooting performance torpedoed his value, as he settled for deep, contested pull-ups rather than probing the paint. Even though he generated positive defensive value through active hands, the sheer number of empty offensive trips dragged his total score down. His erratic shot selection stalled out multiple potential runs.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 28.9m -15.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

Sliced through the defense with relentless downhill pressure, continuing a brilliant streak of high-efficiency scoring. He completely abandoned the struggling three-point shot in favor of high-percentage finishes through contact. His aggressive on-ball defense set a physical tone that elevated his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.6%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 25.6m -13.7
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Sion James 20.2m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Broke out of a horrific shooting slump by capitalizing on wide-open spot-up opportunities. He played strictly within the flow of the offense, refusing to force contested looks. Solid positional defense and timely shot-making allowed him to post a slightly positive impact in a complementary role.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 20.2m -10.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Made his money entirely on the defensive end, anchoring the second unit with elite rim deterrence and timely rotations. His offensive usage plummeted compared to recent games, but he avoided forcing bad shots. Controlling the defensive glass and altering shots in the paint drove a highly efficient, low-usage performance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +72.5
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 18.4m -9.8
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 14.4m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Struggled to find a rhythm in limited action, heavily leaning on a perimeter shot that wasn't falling. He provided almost zero resistance at the point of attack, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. The combination of offensive stagnation and defensive lapses resulted in a sharply negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 14.4m -7.6
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Barely registered in a fleeting appearance, failing to attempt a single shot. He was caught out of position on a couple of defensive rotations, leading to a slight negative impact. Essentially operated as cardio during his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +77.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 4.1m -2.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 33.2m
25
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.2

Commanded the offense with brilliant dual-threat execution, doubling his usual scoring output by aggressively hunting his own shot. His defensive metrics popped thanks to excellent positional rebounding and disrupting passing lanes. Hitting timely perimeter shots forced defenders to play him tight, opening up the floor for his elite playmaking.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +29.9
Avg player in 33.2m -17.7
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Anchored the interior with a strong defensive presence that offset his struggles from deep. Settling for outside looks limited his overall offensive efficiency, but he controlled the glass to end opponent possessions. His rim deterrence in drop coverage proved to be the defining factor in keeping his net impact positive.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 30.6m -16.3
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 29.7m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.5

A severe regression from his recent scoring tear, driven entirely by a disastrous showing from beyond the arc. Blanking on five perimeter attempts cratered his offensive gravity and stalled out multiple possessions. While he provided decent energy on the defensive end, the empty offensive trips heavily outweighed those contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 29.7m -15.9
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Coby White 29.1m
25
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.3

Relentless downhill attacking fueled a massive scoring surge, completely bypassing his broken three-point shot. He generated enormous value through high-activity hustle plays that extended possessions and created second-chance opportunities. The sheer volume of successful paint touches easily masked a slightly negative defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 11/23 (47.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense -0.1
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 29.1m -15.6
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Huerter 24.9m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

Despite solid interior finishing, his perimeter stroke abandoned him, dragging down his offensive ceiling. A lack of high-leverage defensive plays kept his total impact slightly in the red. He failed to stretch the floor during crucial half-court sets, allowing the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 24.9m -13.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Jones 26.6m
16
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.4

Defensive dominance drove a massive positive impact, as he consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions at the point of attack. He maintained his elite finishing streak by exclusively taking high-percentage shots in the flow of the offense. Elite ball pressure combined with opportunistic scoring made this a masterclass in two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +12.3
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 26.6m -14.2
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
Ayo Dosunmu 23.4m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.2

Fell completely out of rhythm after a strong four-game stretch, forcing contested looks that killed offensive momentum. Poor point-of-attack defense allowed opposing guards to easily break the paint, compounding his offensive woes. The lack of secondary hustle stats left him with no way to salvage a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -35.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 23.4m -12.5
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jalen Smith 17.4m
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Provided a solid physical presence inside, finishing efficiently around the basket and contesting shots well. However, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to a lack of offensive volume and missing both of his perimeter attempts. He struggled to anchor the second-unit defense against quicker matchups, bleeding points in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -46.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 17.4m -9.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Continued a brutal stretch of offensive inefficiency by clanking multiple forced mid-range jumpers. He failed to generate any meaningful hustle metrics to justify his floor time, floating on the perimeter for long stretches. A slightly positive defensive rating couldn't rescue a stint defined by wasted offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 12.6m -6.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jevon Carter 10.1m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Barely left a footprint on the game during a brief, low-usage stint. He was a step slow navigating screens, which dragged his defensive rating into the red and allowed open perimeter looks. The lack of offensive aggression rendered him a non-factor on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -94.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 10.1m -5.3
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Burned briefly in a garbage-time cameo where he failed to register a single positive action. Blew a defensive rotation almost immediately upon checking in, resulting in a quick negative hit to his impact score. He was entirely invisible on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0