GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 36.7m
30
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.3

Blistering perimeter shot-making and decisive drives to the rim drove a massive positive rating. He supplemented his offensive explosion with engaged, physical defense that disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. Punishing mismatches on the wing was the defining characteristic of his dominant performance.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 36.7m -19.3
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 33.5m
18
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.8

Sloppy decision-making and forced perimeter looks tanked his overall rating, completely overshadowing his high hustle metrics. He gave away too many possessions through careless passes and poor shot selection. The reckless approach overshadowed his undeniable playmaking talent.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 33.5m -17.6
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 30.9m
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.6

A catastrophic shooting night completely cratered his overall impact, as he repeatedly forced low-quality perimeter looks. While he fought hard defensively, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions bled massive value. His inability to recognize when to stop shooting from deep defined this disastrous outing.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.3%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense -6.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 30.9m -16.4
Impact -15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Stifling interior defense served as the foundation of his positive impact, as he consistently altered shots in the paint. However, his overall score was capped by a lack of offensive involvement and potential foul trouble. He functioned purely as a defensive anchor, rarely looking to assert himself on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 29.4m -15.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Collin Sexton 20.0m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Forcing heavily contested shots and turning the ball over dragged his impact into the negative, snapping a recent streak of high efficiency. He lacked his usual burst, settling for poor perimeter looks instead of pressuring the rim. A complete absence of hustle plays compounded the damage from his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -48.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 20.0m -10.6
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 27.4m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Off-the-charts hustle and perfect perimeter shooting flawlessly balanced out any hidden mistakes to result in a neutral impact. He broke out of a brutal shooting slump by taking only high-value, in-rhythm shots. His relentless energy on loose balls defined a highly effective role-player shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 27.4m -14.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 22.6m
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.8

Taking on a much larger offensive burden led to some forced jumpers early in the shot clock. Still, his ability to break down the defense off the dribble kept his final rating slightly above water. The aggressive mindset was a welcome change, even if the efficiency wasn't entirely there.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 22.6m -11.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.9

Dominating the interior with physical screens and relentless rebounding fueled a highly impactful performance. He maintained his incredible efficiency streak by strictly adhering to a diet of putbacks and point-blank finishes. His ability to generate second-chance opportunities was the driving force behind his stellar rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 18.6m -9.7
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

Chucking up ill-advised perimeter shots severely damaged his net rating, as he failed to connect from deep. While he showed some flashes of energy, his defensive lapses and wasted offensive trips were far too costly. He struggled to adapt to the pace of the game, looking lost on both ends.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 11.3m -6.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

A complete inability to find the mark offensively resulted in a heavily negative impact during his brief stint. He offered no defensive resistance or hustle to compensate for the empty offensive possessions. Forcing bad shots rather than moving the ball quickly derailed his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -5.0
Avg player in 9.6m -5.1
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 35.3m
14
pts
15
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.4

Anchoring the paint with elite rim protection completely derailed the opponent's interior attack and drove his massive defensive impact score. He paired this dominance with strong hustle metrics, generating extra possessions through sheer effort on the glass. Capitalizing on deep post position and lob threats kept his offensive efficiency flawless.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +42.5
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +13.4
Raw total +35.0
Avg player in 35.3m -18.6
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S Julius Randle 32.3m
30
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.8

An absolute offensive clinic defined this performance, as he relentlessly hunted high-value shots to maintain his blazing shooting streak. His physical drives forced the defense into constant rotation, while his stout defensive metrics ensured he wasn't giving points back on the other end. Dominating his individual matchup at both levels drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +24.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 32.3m -17.1
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 31.9m
14
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.8

Despite highly efficient shooting from the floor, his overall impact plunged deep into the red due to costly live-ball turnovers and defensive mistakes. A failure to stay disciplined on the perimeter likely fueled opponent transition opportunities. He will need to clean up the sloppy decision-making to capitalize on his scoring rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 31.9m -16.8
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

A heavy reliance on perimeter volume yielded mixed results, as missed triples slightly suppressed his overall net rating. However, his relentless motor and active hands in the passing lanes provided enough secondary value to keep his impact positive. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump from deep was the defining element of his night.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 31.3m -16.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Mike Conley 28.9m
10
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.7

While his shot selection was pristine, a negative overall impact suggests he bled value through uncharacteristic turnovers or defensive foul costs. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, negating the offensive bounce-back he enjoyed compared to recent outings. The veteran's inability to control the game's tempo ultimately dragged his rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 28.9m -15.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 21.9m
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Aggressive floor-spacing and decisive attacks against closeouts fueled a strong offensive surge that broke a recent cold streak. His high hustle rating reflects a willingness to fight for loose balls and battle on the glass. A slight negative defensive mark was easily masked by his dynamic shot-making off the bench.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 21.9m -11.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylen Clark 19.0m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Elite defensive positioning and relentless ball pressure defined a gritty, blue-collar performance. He bricked all his perimeter attempts, which suppressed his overall score, but made up for it by generating deflections and loose ball recoveries. His willingness to do the dirty work kept his impact marginally positive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 19.0m -10.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.5

Defensive tenacity and high-energy rotations kept his head above water during a quiet offensive stint. He struggled to find his scoring rhythm, passing up open looks and failing to pressure the rim. Still, his commitment to staying in front of his man ensured he didn't hurt the team while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 15.5m -8.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his impact score, as he failed to generate any rim pressure or spacing during his minutes. Without meaningful hustle plays to offset the lack of production, his floor time became a net negative. He simply floated on the perimeter rather than attacking his matchup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 11.6m -6.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bones Hyland 10.0m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Poor shot selection and defensive liabilities quickly tanked his brief appearance on the court. He offered absolutely zero hustle value, failing to fight over screens or contest shooters effectively. A lack of playmaking to balance the missed jumpers left his overall rating firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 10.0m -5.2
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A brief, uneventful cameo yielded a slightly negative score due to empty cardio and zero statistical generation. He failed to register a single hustle play or defensive stop during his limited run. The lack of aggression left him entirely invisible on both ends.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Perfect execution in a garbage-time minute provided a quick, positive spike to his rating. He confidently drained his only look, showing good readiness off the bench. It was a flawless, albeit incredibly brief, micro-shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 1.0m -0.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0