GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 34.3m
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.5

A barrage of missed field goals generated empty trips that severely undercut his solid defensive metrics. He settled for too many contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint, dragging down his overall efficiency. This volume-heavy, low-yield approach neutralized his value on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 34.3m -18.9
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 32.8m
20
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.2

Chucking a high volume of missed three-pointers acted as an anchor on an otherwise robust two-way performance. His aggressive rim pressure and strong defensive rotations were constantly offset by settling for low-quality outside shots. The sheer volume of wasted perimeter possessions kept his net impact trapped in the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 32.8m -18.1
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Collin Sexton 31.5m
16
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.5

Snapping a streak of highly efficient performances, his erratic shot selection resulted in a slew of missed field goals that dragged down his net score. He provided excellent point-of-attack pressure, but forced too many contested drives into heavy traffic. The resulting empty possessions ultimately outweighed his playmaking and defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.7
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.5m -17.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sion James 29.8m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Poor finishing at the rim negated a highly active shift characterized by excellent hustle metrics. Clanking multiple shots stalled offensive momentum and fed directly into opponent transition opportunities. His inability to convert high-effort plays into actual points defined a frustrating outing.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 29.8m -16.5
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+23.3

Absolute perfection around the basket and elite rim deterrence created a monstrous two-way impact. He obliterated his season averages by finishing every single look he was given, punishing undersized matchups in the paint. This flawless execution combined with relentless hustle completely dictated the terms of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/8 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.7%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +5.6
Defense +9.9
Raw total +37.9
Avg player in 26.5m -14.6
Impact +23.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Tre Mann 25.4m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

While he enjoyed a massive scoring surge relative to his recent averages, defensive lapses and poor off-ball awareness torpedoed his overall impact. He found great success hunting his own shot, but gave those points right back by losing his man in rotation. This one-way production illustrates how offensive fireworks can sometimes mask a detrimental floor presence.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 25.4m -14.1
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.0

Dominant glass-cleaning and elite defensive positioning fueled a massive positive rating without needing offensive volume. He consistently ended opponent possessions and generated second-chance opportunities, acting as the primary anchor in the paint. Controlling the boards so thoroughly completely offset his slight dip in scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +6.2
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 23.2m -12.7
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggling to find his rhythm, missing the majority of his attempts stunted the offense and pushed his net rating slightly into the red. He failed to replicate the efficiency of his previous outing, often rushing his release against closeouts. A lack of offensive assertiveness defined a rather forgettable stint on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 11.9m -6.5
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Catching fire from the perimeter provided a massive and unexpected offensive lift. He decisively punished defensive rotations by burying high-quality spot-up looks, shattering his recent scoring slump. This sudden injection of reliable floor spacing was the primary driver behind his positive net score.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.4
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 11.3m -6.1
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 9.0m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Relentless ball pursuit and a willingness to do the dirty work salvaged a positive impact despite poor shooting efficiency. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and won 50/50 balls to earn extra possessions for his squad. This gritty, blue-collar effort successfully masked the damage of his missed field goals.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -56.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 9.0m -5.0
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Operating purely as a screener and ball-mover resulted in a nearly neutral impact during his brief appearance. He failed to attempt a single shot, completely removing himself as a scoring threat in the half-court. This extreme passivity prevented him from making any significant dent in the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -122.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 4.3m -2.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 31.8m
25
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+16.1

Elite shot-making and relentless activity propelled a dominant two-way performance. He consistently broke down primary defenders to create high-quality looks, validating his recent scoring surge with surgical efficiency. His ability to turn loose balls into transition opportunities was the undeniable catalyst for his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +10.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 31.8m -17.5
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 29.7m
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.7

Forcing contested jumpers completely erased the value of his excellent defensive metrics. He broke away from his recently established efficiency by settling for low-quality looks that resulted in long rebounds for the opponent. This high-volume, low-reward shot selection directly dragged down his net score.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 29.7m -16.4
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Gary Trent Jr. 29.3m
2
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.3

Severe offensive regression tanked his overall impact, as he failed to find any rhythm compared to his recent scoring output. Bricking multiple perimeter looks created empty possessions that outweighed his strong hustle metrics. His inability to punish closeouts defined a frustrating stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -39.9
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 29.3m -16.1
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 28.9m
21
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

A massive box score impact stemmed from his aggressive perimeter shooting and floor-spacing gravity. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, his willingness to let it fly from deep forced opposing bigs out of the paint. The combination of rim protection and a sudden offensive explosion dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 28.9m -16.0
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
S AJ Green 26.9m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Despite generating tremendous energy and high-end hustle metrics, his inability to connect on spot-up opportunities severely limited his overall value. Missing multiple open looks derailed offensive momentum and represented a sharp drop-off from his recent form. The stark contrast between his high-motor defensive rotations and offensive hesitancy defined his night.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 26.9m -14.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 23.2m
14
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Interior scoring efficiency kept his box score impact highly positive, but defensive limitations neutralized the overall net rating. He feasted on mismatches in the post to convert at a high clip. However, giving up crucial positioning on the other end ultimately flattened his overall contribution to slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 23.2m -12.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jericho Sims 18.0m
2
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

A steep decline in offensive involvement heavily muted his overall effectiveness. While he provided sturdy rim deterrence, the lack of typical roll-gravity allowed the defense to cheat off him. His passive approach on offense turned what is usually a reliable interior presence into a slight negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 18.0m -9.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cole Anthony 15.0m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.3

Disastrous shot selection completely cratered his net rating and stalled the half-court offense. Wasting numerous possessions on low-percentage looks allowed the opponent to consistently leak out in transition. This erratic decision-making was the primary culprit behind his double-digit negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg -56.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 15.0m -8.3
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Amir Coffey 11.6m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Marginal offensive volume and a couple of missed perimeter looks kept his impact slightly in the red. He brought commendable energy on 50/50 balls, but struggled to bend the defense when the ball swung his way. Blending into the background rather than forcing the issue characterized his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 11.6m -6.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Mark Sears 5.9m
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Instant offense off the bench drove a quick positive spike during his limited run. Nailing a pair of quick-trigger triples punished defensive lapses and maximized his short stint. His fearless approach to catch-and-shoot scenarios provided exactly the spark the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 45.5%
Net Rtg +72.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 5.9m -3.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Complete offensive invisibility offset a fundamentally sound defensive shift. He failed to register a single shot attempt, abandoning the efficient scoring rhythm he had established in previous games. Operating strictly as a cardio player on offense prevented him from making a tangible positive mark.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +81.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 5.7m -3.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.8

Passing up open looks resulted in a zero-usage offensive shift that slightly dragged down his net score. Although he kept the ball moving to generate positive flow, his reluctance to attack the rim was a glaring departure from his recent aggressive play. This extreme deference allowed his primary defender to aggressively roam the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +81.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 5.7m -3.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Pete Nance 4.3m
10
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.6

Exceptional shot selection and floor spacing fueled a highly efficient cameo appearance. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to bury open jumpers, seamlessly continuing his recent streak of reliable offensive production. Maximizing every touch during spot minutes defined this highly positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 55.6%
Net Rtg +122.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 4.3m -2.3
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

High-energy bursts and perfect execution on his lone opportunity yielded a modest positive rating. He provided a quick jolt of physicality that disrupted the opponent's offensive flow. Converting his only look at the rim was a welcome deviation from his recent shooting struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +131.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0