GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 34.1m
26
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Torched the nets with elite shot preparation, punishing late closeouts with a barrage of highly efficient perimeter daggers. His off-ball movement constantly scrambled the opposing defense and created wide-open looks. This relentless floor-spacing was the primary engine behind his strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.9%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 34.1m -19.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 30.3m
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

A heavy reliance on contested mid-range pull-ups dragged down his overall efficiency and stalled the offensive flow. While he found ways to manufacture points, the high volume of empty trips negated his overall production. Solid rotational defense kept him near neutral, but the shot selection left much to be desired.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 30.3m -17.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 25.5m
21
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Kept firing despite a frigid night from beyond the arc, ultimately salvaging his impact through aggressive drives to the basket. The sheer volume of his perimeter misses threatened to sink the offense, but his ability to collapse the defense off the bounce provided necessary balance. Timely defensive reads helped keep his overall net rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 25.5m -14.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 25.1m
18
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.3

Bleeding points at the point of attack completely unraveled his overall impact, as opposing guards blew past him with ease. His shot selection from deep was erratic at best, killing several transition opportunities with early-clock bombs. The flashy playmaking couldn't mask the severe defensive liabilities he presented tonight.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -2.5
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 25.1m -14.7
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Struggled to establish deep post position, neutralizing the hyper-efficient interior finishing he usually provides. Opposing bigs successfully pushed him out of his comfort zone, severely limiting his touches. A lack of rim-deterrence on the other end capped off an underwhelming rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 10.7m -6.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Generated plenty of extra possessions through sheer effort on the offensive glass, but gave that value right back with sloppy execution. A pattern of moving screens and fumbled catches in the paint derailed several promising sets. His high-energy motor was ultimately undermined by a lack of offensive polish.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 24.9m -14.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Provided a relentless downhill attacking presence that consistently compromised the opponent's interior defense. His ability to absorb contact and finish in traffic kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. A disciplined approach to shot selection ensured his high usage translated into a positive net yield.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 22.9m -13.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 21.4m
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.8

Operating as an extreme offensive zero allowed defenders to aggressively double-team his teammates. Despite showing solid lateral quickness and defensive awareness, his refusal to look at the basket crippled the team's spacing. The severe negative net rating reflects playing four-on-five on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 21.4m -12.6
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Looked rushed and out of sync on the perimeter, bricking open looks that the offense worked hard to generate. While he chipped in admirably on the defensive glass, his inability to stretch the floor allowed the paint to remain clogged. The steep drop in shooting efficiency directly correlated to his heavily negative plus-minus.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 17.9m -10.5
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Proved that you don't need to attempt a single field goal to dominate a shift, anchoring the second unit with spectacular positional defense. His elite rim deterrence and quick closeouts on pick-and-rolls completely stifled the opponent's bench unit. Dominating the defensive glass ensured that stops translated directly into transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 12.4m -7.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

A pair of forced, out-of-rhythm three-pointers highlighted a disjointed rotational appearance. He struggled to blend into the offensive flow, often holding the ball too long and stalling the offense. Despite some decent defensive rotations, his inability to capitalize on open space made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.5
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 9.0m -5.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Failed to provide the intended veteran stabilizing presence during a brief stint, missing both of his spot-up opportunities. He was a step slow navigating through off-ball screens, putting the defense in rotation. His minutes were ultimately a wash, offering neither scoring punch nor lockdown coverage.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.7m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 5.7m -3.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 35.2m
55
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+29.6

An absolute offensive supernova fueled by an unstoppable barrage of step-back three-pointers that completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. The sheer gravity of his perimeter shooting opened up passing lanes, allowing him to dictate the entire flow of the game. This historic scoring eruption single-handedly drove a massive net-positive margin.

Shooting
FG 17/26 (65.4%)
3PT 10/16 (62.5%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 85.5%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +46.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +50.1
Avg player in 35.2m -20.5
Impact +29.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kobe Sanders 29.9m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite an active motor that generated solid hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to empty possessions on offense. A pattern of forced perimeter shots disrupted the team's rhythm. His off-ball activity couldn't offset the lack of playmaking and rebounding for a guard playing heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 29.9m -17.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ivica Zubac 29.9m
18
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.6

Anchored the interior with a masterclass in high-percentage finishing and excellent passing out of the post. His ability to find cutters from the high block added a dynamic layer to the offense that drove a massive positive rating. Consistent rim protection and active rebounding rounded out a dominant two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 29.9m -17.4
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 27.4m
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

While his playmaking volume was solid, hidden costs like live-ball turnovers and poor transition defense kept his overall impact firmly in the negative. He showed improved touch on his limited attempts, but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. The stark contrast between his positive box score production and actual net rating points to empty calories in his floor game.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 7.6%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 27.4m -16.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S John Collins 25.6m
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A noticeable dip in finishing efficiency snapped his streak of highly accurate shooting nights, dragging down his overall value. Settling for contested looks from beyond the arc stalled out offensive possessions. The lack of secondary playmaking meant that when his interior touches weren't falling, his floor presence became a net negative.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 25.6m -14.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Chris Paul 23.1m
3
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.3

Uncharacteristic sloppiness with the basketball and an inability to keep defenders honest with his own shot severely hampered the second unit. Opponents sagged off him completely, clogging the passing lanes and turning his usual playmaking into a liability. A pattern of defensive mismatches further dragged his net rating into the gutter.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 23.1m -13.5
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Christie 20.6m
8
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

A brutal combination of forced shots and zero playmaking cratered his offensive value despite strong work on the glass. Clanking multiple contested looks from deep killed crucial momentum during his stint. While his defensive positioning was fundamentally sound, the offensive black hole he created was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 20.6m -12.0
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.8

Snapped out of a severe shooting slump by hunting high-quality spot-up looks from the corners. His defensive rotations were immaculate, generating a stellar rating on that end through timely weak-side help blocks. This was the quintessential 3-and-D performance that perfectly complemented the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 19.2m -11.3
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Brook Lopez 14.9m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Operated almost exclusively as a floor-spacer, which provided decent scoring punch but left the interior vulnerable. A complete lack of rebounding presence from the center position negated the value of his outside shooting. His tendency to float on the perimeter resulted in a perfectly neutral overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 14.9m -8.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Brown 7.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Completely vanished during a brief rotation stint, failing to replicate the aggressive rim-running that defined his recent strong stretch. Hesitation on offense led to dead possessions and allowed the defense to rest. His lack of impact was magnified by slow closeouts on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -47.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 7.8m -4.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged a brief, uneventful stint where he essentially just ran cardio. Maintained defensive discipline by staying in front of his man, avoiding any glaring mistakes. Did not have enough floor time to leave a meaningful imprint on the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -112.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 3.3m -2.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Rushed his attempts around the basket during a very short cameo, squandering easy second-chance opportunities. He managed to secure a couple of loose balls to show some life on the interior. Ultimately, the missed bunnies kept his brief appearance slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -112.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 3.3m -1.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0