GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 35.5m
24
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Lethal perimeter shot-making punished drop coverages and significantly elevated his team's offensive ceiling. He consistently hunted favorable matchups on the wing, turning defensive lapses into immediate points to shatter his recent averages. This aggressive scoring mentality, paired with solid connective passing, anchored a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 35.5m -19.6
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 33.2m
29
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.7

High-volume attacking generated a massive box-score impact, overcoming a barrage of missed perimeter jumpers. He relentlessly pressured the rim in transition, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble to contain his drives. The sheer physical force of his downhill game dictated the tempo, resulting in a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 33.2m -18.3
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Collin Sexton 29.2m
10
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
-13.7

Disastrous defensive metrics and inefficient isolation attempts severely punished his team during his minutes. While he operated as a high-level distributor, his inability to convert his own looks broke his recent streak of efficient scoring. Opponents mercilessly targeted him on the perimeter, turning his floor time into a massive net negative (-13.7).

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 29.2m -16.1
Impact -13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Sion James 28.8m
15
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.6

A massive, unexpected scoring eruption was fueled by brilliant off-ball cutting and spot-up precision. He punished defenders for helping off him, converting highly efficient looks to completely shatter his recent baseline. However, a lack of defensive playmaking kept his overall net impact surprisingly grounded despite the offensive fireworks.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 28.8m -15.9
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.4

An absolute masterclass in rim deterrence (+15.7 Def) completely overshadowed a quiet offensive night. He altered countless shots in the paint, single-handedly shutting down the opponent's interior attack and erasing perimeter mistakes. His elite verticality and hustle negated the fact that his usual lob-finishing opportunities never materialized.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +54.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +15.7
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 22.1m -12.2
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 4
BLK 4
TO 1
17
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+17.8

Utter dominance on the interior and elite finishing around the basket drove a massive positive impact (+17.8). He feasted on second-chance opportunities, using his physicality to completely overwhelm opposing bigs in the paint. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient performances, his relentless rim-running broke the opponent's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.3
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 22.3m -12.3
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tre Mann 22.1m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

A massive spike in scoring aggression was largely offset by poor shooting efficiency and defensive lapses. He injected much-needed energy with high-motor recovery plays (+5.1 Hustle), keeping possessions alive on the margins. Ultimately, the sheer volume of missed jumpers prevented his scoring surge from translating into a highly positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense -1.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 22.1m -12.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 16.6m
7
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

Poor shot selection and an inability to dictate the offensive tempo resulted in a damaging stint. He struggled to organize the half-court sets, often settling for contested late-clock jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Despite decent point-of-attack defense, the offensive stagnation was simply too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 16.6m -9.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Despite breaking out of a severe scoring slump, defensive vulnerabilities dragged his overall impact firmly into the red. He knocked down a couple of timely perimeter looks, but opponents consistently blew past his closeouts on the other end. The points he generated were immediately given back through poor containment.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 14.4m -8.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Extreme passivity on the offensive end rendered him a net negative during his brief floor time. He passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to shrink the floor and ignore his side of the court. Without his usual floor-spacing gravity, the offensive sets bogged down significantly.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 9.4m -5.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Dropped passes and a complete lack of rim pressure ruined a very brief appearance. He failed to execute as a roll man, clogging the paint and disrupting the spacing for the primary ball-handlers. The inability to convert or even attempt a shot at the basket made his minutes highly detrimental (-3.7).

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 3.6m -2.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

A failure to leave any statistical footprint during a short stint resulted in a slightly negative grade. He struggled to find the pace of the game, floating on the perimeter without engaging in the primary offensive actions. The total lack of aggression or defensive playmaking made his minutes effectively empty.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +180.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.8m -1.5
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Keyonte George 33.2m
25
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.2

Aggressive downhill attacking generated significant offensive gravity, though inefficient perimeter execution limited his overall net rating. He consistently collapsed the defense to create passing lanes, pairing that with high-motor recovery plays (+4.8 Hustle). The scoring volume was loud, but the underlying shot quality kept his actual impact relatively modest.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 56.9%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 33.2m -18.4
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Lauri Markkanen 32.9m
29
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.3

High-volume perimeter creation drove a stellar box-score metric, though the sheer number of missed jumpers capped his ceiling slightly. He operated as the primary offensive engine, taking on difficult isolation matchups to keep the defense stretched. Solid secondary rim protection (+3.0 Def) kept his overall net impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 12/28 (42.9%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.2%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 32.9m -18.1
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Svi Mykhailiuk 29.1m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

A sudden disappearance from the offensive flow resulted in a steep negative impact (-10.6) compared to his usual standard. Unable to replicate his recent scoring tear, he floated on the perimeter and failed to generate meaningful rim pressure. Without his customary shot-making to bend the defense, his floor minutes yielded empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 29.1m -16.0
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.2

A massive surge in offensive confidence fueled a highly positive overall impact (+10.2) as he broke out of a recent shooting slump. His decisive shot selection maximized his floor time without forcing bad looks against set defenses. Strong defensive rotations (+4.1 Def) ensured this scoring spike translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.1
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 25.1m -13.8
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jusuf Nurkić 22.0m
3
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Elite interior deterrence (+9.9 Def) almost entirely salvaged an otherwise disastrous offensive outing. He struggled mightily to finish through contact around the basket, cratering his scoring value and stalling half-court sets. However, his relentless physicality on the glass and shot-altering presence in the paint kept his team afloat during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -51.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.9
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 22.0m -12.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Ace Bailey 19.1m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Forcing contested midrange looks caused a sharp drop-off from his recent offensive rhythm and dragged down his overall impact. The defense keyed in on his driving lanes, turning him into an inefficient jump shooter who bailed out the opposition. Despite decent positional defense, the inability to find easy baskets doomed his shift.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 19.1m -10.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Poor perimeter execution and an inability to break down his primary defender led to a negative overall showing. He struggled to find the rhythm that had defined his recent outings, settling for heavily contested looks late in the shot clock. The resulting empty trips completely offset his adequate point-of-attack defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 18.8m -10.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Snapping a long streak of highly efficient performances, his inability to finish through interior traffic tanked his value. Opposing bigs successfully pushed him off his preferred spots on the block, neutralizing his usual scoring threat. Without his reliable interior production to anchor the sets, the offense stagnated during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 15.8m -8.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kevin Love 14.5m
3
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

Limited offensive touches and an inability to stretch the floor resulted in a slightly negative stint. He operated primarily as a stationary hub, moving the ball well but failing to threaten the defense as a true scoring option. This lack of shooting gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him, which bogged down the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 14.5m -8.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Exceptional connective tissue work and loose-ball recovery (+5.2 Hustle) drove a quietly effective performance. He broke out of a scoring funk by finding soft spots in the zone, taking only high-percentage looks near the basket. His methodical pacing and timely deflections stabilized the second unit perfectly.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 11.6m -6.3
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Complete offensive invisibility erased the momentum from his recent scoring surge and hurt his team's spacing. He turned down open catch-and-shoot looks, allowing the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. While his defensive rotations were solid (+3.0 Def), the lack of aggression crippled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 9.2m -5.0
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Extreme efficiency in a limited role produced a positive net rating despite a massive drop in his usual usage rate. He capitalized perfectly on the few spot-up opportunities he received, playing strictly within the flow of the offense. A lack of forced actions ensured he didn't give anything back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 8.7m -4.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0