GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 40.0m
34
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.5

Scorching perimeter execution absolutely broke the opponent's defensive game plan and skyrocketed his net impact. He consistently punished late closeouts and generated immense gravity that simplified the offense for everyone else. His aggressive downhill attacks during the third quarter decisively swung the momentum.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 7/12 (58.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +34.6
Avg player in 40.0m -21.1
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 38.1m
19
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.0

Smart connective passing and disciplined defensive rotations anchored a steady, positive performance. He consistently made the extra read against collapsing defenses, keeping the offensive machinery humming. A few late-clock defensive stops against isolation attacks highlighted his reliable two-way execution.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 38.1m -20.1
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Collin Sexton 25.6m
13
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Forced drives into heavy traffic resulted in empty possessions that stalled offensive momentum. Despite high-energy bursts and solid hustle metrics, his erratic decision-making as a primary initiator proved costly. The defense frequently baited him into contested midrange pull-ups that derailed the team's shot diet.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 25.6m -13.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Sion James 24.6m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Offensive spacing issues and mistimed cuts severely bogged down the half-court execution, dragging his impact deeply into the negative. While he competed hard on the perimeter defensively, his inability to command defensive attention allowed opponents to aggressively pack the paint. He struggled to find any rhythm during transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 24.6m -12.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Defensive liabilities in pick-and-roll coverage entirely erased his efficient interior finishing. Opposing guards relentlessly attacked his drop coverage, generating uncontested floaters and lob threats. His inability to anchor the paint during a crucial second-quarter stretch directly fueled a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -26.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.2
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.3m -10.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite rim protection and flawless shot selection anchored a highly productive two-way performance. He deterred multiple drives at the summit and consistently made the right reads as a roll man. His disciplined verticality in the paint completely shut off the opponent's interior attack during the fourth quarter.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 28.7m -15.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
KJ Simpson 20.1m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.6

Poor point-of-attack defense allowed opposing ball-handlers to consistently break down the defensive shell. His offensive contributions were largely negated by a failure to organize the second-unit offense effectively. A series of miscommunications on defensive switches directly contributed to his steep negative rating.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 20.1m -10.5
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Tre Mann 18.1m
6
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.2

Settling for low-percentage perimeter looks rather than attacking the rim tanked his offensive efficiency. He struggled to stay attached to shooters navigating through off-ball screens, compounding his struggles on the other end. The overall lack of rim pressure made him a net negative during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 18.1m -9.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Brick-heavy perimeter shooting and slow defensive closeouts resulted in a punishing net negative rating. Opponents actively hunted him in isolation, taking advantage of his lateral stiffness on the wing. His failure to capitalize on wide-open spot-up opportunities severely cramped the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense -1.4
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 17.7m -9.2
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Operating purely as an innings-eater, he provided a brief defensive spark without taking a single shot. His veteran positioning helped blow up a few baseline out-of-bounds plays, though his offensive invisibility kept his overall impact slightly negative. He essentially functioned as a placeholder to buy the starters rest.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 8.0m -4.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 38.4m
38
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.6

Total control of the offensive tempo resulted in a dominant footprint, even with streaky perimeter execution. His ability to manipulate pick-and-roll coverages systematically dismantled the opponent's defensive shell. However, occasional lapses in transition defense slightly muted his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 14/28 (50.0%)
3PT 5/15 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +27.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 38.4m -20.2
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Marcus Smart 36.6m
13
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.3

Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle drove a massive positive impact. His unexpected scoring burst forced defenders to respect his perimeter game, opening up passing lanes. The overall defensive intensity completely neutralized his primary matchup on the wing.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +10.4
Defense +15.9
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 36.6m -19.2
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 7
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 35.6m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

Punishing mismatches in the mid-post fueled a massive spike in offensive efficiency. While his scoring gravity anchored the half-court offense, a relatively quiet defensive presence kept his overall impact from reaching elite tiers. He thrived specifically during isolation sets against smaller wings.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 35.6m -18.7
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 32.9m
14
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite maintaining his streak of highly efficient finishing around the rim, his overall impact slipped into the negative. A lack of rim-deterrence and slow rotations in drop coverage allowed opponents to capitalize in the paint. The scoring volume simply masked how much ground he surrendered defensively.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 32.9m -17.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Austin Reaves 29.4m
24
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.4

Cold perimeter shooting failed to derail his overall effectiveness thanks to relentless secondary playmaking and solid defensive positioning. He consistently generated high-quality looks for teammates when his own outside shot refused to fall. His ability to draw contact on drives salvaged offensive possessions that were otherwise stalling out.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 29.4m -15.5
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jake LaRavia 24.9m
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Bricking open spot-up looks severely hampered floor spacing and dragged his net impact into the red. Opposing defenses blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. A few timely hustle plays on the glass couldn't offset the offensive stagnation he caused.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 24.9m -13.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Complete offensive passivity allowed the opponent to play five-on-four in the half-court, cratering his overall impact. Without his usual disruptive defensive metrics to compensate, his presence actively hindered the lineup's flow. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, failing to provide the perimeter containment expected of him.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.8%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.7
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 16.2m -8.5
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaxson Hayes 14.9m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Crashing the offensive glass and contesting shots at the rim drove a highly efficient hustle rating. Even with his offensive touches drastically reduced, his vertical spacing and screen-setting created distinct advantages. He completely shifted the energy of the second unit through sheer physical exertion.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +6.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 14.9m -7.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.4

Operating strictly as a spacing decoy, he managed to stay net-neutral during a brief rotation stint. His lone perimeter connection forced a defensive adjustment that briefly opened up the interior. Otherwise, he mostly floated on the weak side without heavily influencing the action.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 11.1m -5.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0