GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S LaMelo Ball 36.3m
17
pts
7
reb
13
ast
Impact
+5.4

Elite playmaking and exceptional hustle (+9.9) effectively offset a brutal shooting night from the perimeter. He manipulated the defense with his eyes, consistently finding cutters and shooters to keep the offense humming despite his own struggles. His length also disrupted passing lanes (+5.3 Def), proving he can impact winning even when his jumper isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +9.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 36.3m -20.6
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 33.0m
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.4

Despite decent counting stats, his overall impact plummeted (-11.4) due to poor defensive rotations and consistently late closeouts. He repeatedly lost track of his assignment on the weak side, surrendering open corner threes during a disastrous third-quarter stretch. The offensive production simply masked how much he bled points on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 33.0m -18.7
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
17
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.8

A monstrous spike in offensive efficiency drove a massive positive impact (+7.8) for the young center. He dominated the pick-and-roll as a dive man, finishing everything around the rim with authority and drawing crucial fouls. Combined with stout drop coverage (+6.8 Def), he completely neutralized the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 31.5m -18.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
S Sion James 27.7m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

An unexpected uptick in scoring couldn't salvage a heavily negative overall impact (-7.3). He struggled mightily with ball security, committing careless live-ball turnovers that directly fueled opponent fast breaks. While the defensive metrics look solid on paper, those glaring offensive mistakes were simply too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 27.7m -15.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 26.8m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.3

A severe offensive regression cratered his overall impact (-14.3) despite commendable hustle (+5.0) on loose balls. He repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock, completely derailing the team's half-court offensive flow. The inability to convert those low-percentage attempts directly allowed the opposition to leak out for easy transition points.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 26.8m -15.2
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
19
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

High-efficiency scoring boosted his box metrics, but glaring defensive lapses dragged his overall impact into the negative (-1.2). He consistently died on screens, allowing opposing guards free runs at the rim during crucial possessions. This inability to contain the point of attack ultimately negated his explosive offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense -1.9
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 25.4m -14.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Relentless offensive rebounding and high-percentage finishing fueled a strong positive impact (+8.7). He anchored the second unit by setting bone-crushing screens that consistently freed up shooters on the perimeter. His disciplined rim protection (+5.9 Def) further solidified a highly effective two-way performance off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.9
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 20.2m -11.5
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Tre Mann 15.7m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A significant scoring bump masked a negative overall impact (-5.0) driven largely by poor shot selection. He repeatedly settled for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the clock, effectively bailing out the defense. This inability to generate high-value looks stalled the offense whenever he initiated the action as the primary ball-handler.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 15.7m -9.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Smart connective passing and timely cuts resulted in a marginally positive impact (+0.6) for the rookie. He kept the ball moving against complex zone looks, refusing to let the offense stagnate in the half-court. While not dominant, his high basketball IQ ensured he was a steady net positive during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +6.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 14.3m -8.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

A brief, ineffective stint resulted in a negative impact (-3.9) as he struggled to find the flow of the game. He looked entirely lost in offensive sets, frequently clogging driving lanes and disrupting the team's spacing. This distinct lack of assertiveness made him an offensive liability during his limited minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 7.2m -4.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A completely empty stat line across the board reflects a total non-factor appearance. He failed to register any meaningful hustle plays or defensive stops during his brief time on the court. The slight negative impact (-1.1) is simply a byproduct of occupying space without actively contributing to the team's success.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Franz Wagner 34.2m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.2

Elite hustle metrics (+12.3) drove a massive positive impact, reflecting relentless off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries. He exploited defensive rotations during a crucial second-half stretch to generate high-value looks at the rim. The elevated scoring volume simply capitalized on the extra possessions his energy created.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +12.2
Defense +5.6
Raw total +32.7
Avg player in 34.2m -19.5
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Paolo Banchero 32.7m
20
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.8

Defensive versatility (+10.5) anchored his overall value, as he effectively switched onto smaller guards on the perimeter to stifle penetration. His playmaking gravity consistently collapsed the paint, allowing him to spray passes to open shooters whenever the defense brought a double-team. The high overall impact stems directly from this dual-threat ability to dictate the game's tempo on both ends.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +10.5
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 32.7m -18.7
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Black 30.6m
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Smothering point-of-attack defense (+8.3) set the tone for a highly productive outing. He consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions by fighting over screens and applying relentless ball pressure against the primary ball-handler. This defensive disruption translated directly into transition opportunities, amplifying his overall positive influence on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 30.6m -17.5
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Desmond Bane 27.9m
9
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-13.3

A severe drop in scoring volume dragged his overall impact deeply into the red (-13.3). Opposing wing defenders successfully denied him the ball off screens, completely disrupting his usual catch-and-shoot rhythm. Without his typical perimeter gravity to stretch the floor, the spacing suffered and half-court sets frequently stalled.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 27.9m -15.9
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.1

Exceptional shot selection fueled a towering box impact (+21.2), continuing a highly efficient streak of finishing through contact. He dominated his interior matchups by sealing off opposing bigs early in the shot clock to establish deep post position. This calculated, physical approach minimized empty possessions and maximized the team's offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 26.9m -15.3
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

High-quality shot selection and decisive weak-side cuts drove a strong positive impact (+9.0). He repeatedly punished defensive over-helps by finding soft spots in the zone during a pivotal third-quarter run. Furthermore, his length actively disrupted passing lanes (+6.3 Def), establishing him as a crucial two-way catalyst.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.3
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 22.4m -12.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Noah Penda 17.0m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Despite a massive relative spike in his usual offensive production, overall impact remained negative (-5.8) due to systemic defensive breakdowns. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, frequently losing his man on backdoor cuts during a rough second-quarter stretch. The slight bump in scoring simply couldn't offset the easy baskets surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 17.0m -9.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite defensive instincts (+5.3) and relentless hustle (+5.5) salvaged an otherwise quiet offensive night. He functioned as a one-man wrecking crew in the passing lanes, generating crucial deflections that short-circuited opponent sets. This constant off-ball disruption ensured he remained a net positive despite struggling to find his shooting stroke.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 15.2m -8.7
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Tyus Jones 13.9m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Breaking out of a recent scoreless slump provided a mild box-score boost, but overall impact hovered near neutral (-0.2). He managed the game pace well but lacked the aggressive penetration needed to truly collapse the defense. A few costly miscommunications on perimeter switches ultimately neutralized the value of his steady ball-handling.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +32.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 13.9m -8.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 13.3m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Solid rim protection (+4.2) provided a steadying presence during his limited minutes on the floor. He altered multiple shots in the paint by maintaining perfect verticality against driving guards. This disciplined interior defense, combined with timely offensive put-backs, resulted in a highly efficient stint off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 13.3m -7.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A brief cameo yielded a negligible impact (+0.1) as he failed to register a single shot attempt. He focused entirely on facilitating, moving the ball quickly around the perimeter without forcing the issue against the defense. This distinct lack of aggression resulted in a completely neutral presence during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 1.9m -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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Barely seeing the floor, his minimal playing time resulted in a slight negative impact (-1.3). He was caught out of position on a quick defensive transition, leading directly to an easy opponent layup. There simply wasn't enough runway to establish any rhythm or meaningfully influence the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A complete zero across all impact metrics reflects a highly passive stint at the end of the rotation. He failed to assert himself offensively, disappearing entirely from the team's spacing concepts during his brief appearance. This distinct lack of engagement essentially turned his minutes into empty cardio.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -1.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0