GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 41.4m
35
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.9

An aggressive downhill attacking style overwhelmed the defense and fueled a massive scoring surge. Isolating against slower forwards and driving left repeatedly broke down the defensive scheme, allowing him to convert through contact. This relentless interior pressure more than compensated for a cold night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 64.9%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.4m
Offense +26.7
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +33.7
Avg player in 41.4m -21.8
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kon Knueppel 36.7m
20
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.7

Lethal perimeter shooting stretched the defense and opened up driving lanes for teammates. Forcing defenders to fight over screens 30 feet from the hoop warped the opponent's defensive shell and shifted their game plan. A highly efficient offensive outing was slightly dampened by a lack of involvement in loose ball situations.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.2
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 36.7m -19.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 25.3m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.4

A catastrophic shooting performance completely derailed the offense and cratered his impact score. A frustrating pattern of settling for heavily contested pull-up jumpers early in the clock doomed his efficiency and fed opponent transition. This severe regression in shot quality snapped a streak of highly efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 1/13 (7.7%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 25.3m -13.3
Impact -12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.8

Anchored the interior with elite rim protection and exceptional hustle on the glass. Timing his weak-side block attempts perfectly erased multiple high-percentage looks at the rim, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. His high-efficiency finishing on limited touches perfectly complemented his game-changing defensive presence.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -37.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +6.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 22.3m -11.7
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 21.7m
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.6

Poor shot selection from the perimeter and defensive inattentiveness drove a negative overall rating. Dying on ball screens and failing to recover allowed opposing guards to walk into open jumpers, compounding the damage from his inefficient scoring. He repeatedly settled for early-clock, contested threes instead of initiating offensive sets, bailing out the defense.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.6%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense -1.3
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 21.7m -11.3
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.5

Relentless point-of-attack defense and efficient scoring drives defined a highly impactful performance. Picking up the opposing point guard full-court set a physical, aggressive tone that disrupted the opponent's rhythm. He consistently pressured ball-handlers into mistakes while picking his spots perfectly on offense.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +38.3
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.4
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 33.2m -17.4
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Provided steady interior stability by controlling the glass and finishing reliably around the basket. Sealing off his man early in the post allowed for easy dump-off finishes and high-efficiency looks. His disciplined defensive positioning altered shots without drawing fouls, resulting in a modest but positive overall contribution.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 30.4m -15.9
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 30.2m
2
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Strong defensive metrics were entirely undone by a complete inability to convert on the offensive end. Opponents blatantly ignoring him on the perimeter ruined the team's half-court spacing and clogged driving lanes for his teammates. Despite excellent hustle, his offensive limitations severely handicapped the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 30.2m -15.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Maximized his limited minutes with decisive offensive execution and sharp defensive rotations. Drifting perfectly to the weak-side corner during drives created easy passing lanes for his teammates to exploit. This quick burst of two-way productivity, highlighted by knocking down open looks, provided a noticeable jolt to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 13.3m -6.9
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 10.6m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Failed to make a dent offensively during his brief stint, missing his perimeter attempts and looking out of sync. Hesitating on open catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed the defense to recover and stifle the possession. The lack of scoring punch combined with minor defensive missteps resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 10.6m -5.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 39.9m
22
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.6

A barrage of missed jumpers severely dragged down his overall impact despite an uptick in scoring volume. Settling for contested mid-range looks consistently stalled offensive momentum and fed into opponent transition opportunities. While his hustle metrics remained positive, the sheer number of empty possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg -17.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 39.9m -20.9
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Scottie Barnes 39.3m
30
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.2

Dominated the game through exceptional shot selection and highly efficient finishing around the rim. Bullying smaller defenders in the post dictated the game's tempo and anchored the offense. This two-way mastery, combined with strong defensive positioning to generate crucial stops, drove a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.6
Raw total +37.9
Avg player in 39.3m -20.7
Impact +17.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
22
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.6

Heavy offensive usage yielded mixed results, as his playmaking was offset by inefficient perimeter shooting. A pattern of forcing contested threes early in the shot clock limited his overall effectiveness despite successfully initiating the offense. Defensive neutrality meant his impact was entirely dependent on a jump shot that ran hot and cold.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +4.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 36.7m -19.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jakob Poeltl 32.5m
8
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+7.5

Impact was driven entirely by elite playmaking from the post and dominant interior defense rather than scoring. Finding cutters from the high post defined his offensive contribution, generating high-quality looks while he altered shots around the basket. A low-usage but highly effective approach allowed him to control the paint without needing touches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 32.5m -17.1
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Ja'Kobe Walter 27.2m
5
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Marginal offensive involvement and defensive lapses resulted in a noticeable negative impact. Getting beat off the dribble by quicker guards highlighted his defensive struggles, bleeding points on the perimeter despite showing decent energy on loose balls. The lack of assertiveness on offense made it difficult to offset his defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 27.2m -14.3
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Shead 22.9m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Errant perimeter shooting heavily damaged his overall rating and derailed offensive possessions. A glaring pattern of bricking wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities crippled the half-court offense and led to empty trips. Despite acceptable defensive effort, his inability to stretch the floor proved detrimental to the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -20.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 22.9m -12.1
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Provided a steady offensive spark off the bench by attacking closeouts and finishing efficiently. Attacking out-of-control closeouts generated easy looks at the rim, showing disciplined shot selection. Though his defensive impact was muted, his reliable scoring in the second unit kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 19.3m -10.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 17.7m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Continued a prolonged shooting slump, failing to punish defenders for going under screens. Being repeatedly hunted in pick-and-roll switches exposed his lack of lateral quickness, driving his negative defensive impact. The combination of missed open looks and defensive vulnerability made it difficult to keep him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.0
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 17.7m -9.3
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 16.1m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.2

Offensive invisibility and poor finishing around the basket tanked his overall value. Blowing uncontested layups in traffic killed offensive momentum and stalled out half-court sets. While his defensive positioning was adequate, the complete lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 16.1m -8.4
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Completely abandoned his scoring role but still managed to positively influence the game through defensive rotations and hustle. Executing crisp weak-side rotations saved multiple layups and defined his short stint on the floor. This performance highlighted his ability to impact winning even when completely frozen out of the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 13.4m -7.1
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1