GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 36.9m
24
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+6.6

Compensated for a brutal shooting night from deep by relentlessly attacking the basket and generating elite hustle numbers (+5.2). His downhill aggression collapsed the defense, allowing him to spray passes to open teammates. Thrived in transition sequences where his athleticism overwhelmed retreating defenders.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 36.9m -18.8
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 33.5m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

Dragged down his overall impact (-4.8) by stubbornly hoisting low-quality perimeter shots against tight closeouts. While his defensive effort (+3.5) remained commendable, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. A classic case of poor shot selection overriding decent foundational play.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 33.5m -17.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 29.5m
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.9

Sabotaged his own impact (-6.9) with a brutal shooting performance characterized by forced, off-balance jumpers. Snapped a highly efficient three-game streak by settling for contested looks early in the shot clock. Despite decent defensive metrics (+3.2), his offensive inefficiency was a massive anchor on the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 29.5m -15.1
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S KJ Simpson 29.3m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Mitigated a shaky perimeter shooting night by consistently breaking down the defense off the dribble. His active hands and defensive pressure (+3.5) helped offset the damage from his missed jumpers. Provided crucial secondary creation during a stagnant third-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 29.3m -14.9
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Generated tremendous hustle (+4.8) and defensive value (+3.5), but likely suffered from hidden negative plays like costly fouls or unforced errors to drag his total to -1.0. Executed well as a roll man, yet couldn't quite tilt the broader lineup metrics in his favor. His rim protection during the second quarter was a notable bright spot.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 24.5m -12.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Sion James 25.9m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

A lack of shooting gravity severely cramped the floor, leading to a detrimental -5.9 overall impact. While he brought decent energy (+3.0 hustle), his inability to punish defensive sag allowed opponents to pack the paint. Forced several ill-advised drives when his outside shot failed to fall.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 25.9m -13.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggled to positively influence the game (-4.0) despite converting his limited looks around the basket. Bled value through defensive miscommunications and struggles defending in space against quicker lineups. Failed to establish a physical presence in the paint during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 21.9m -11.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Delivered a lethal display of spot-up shooting that instantly warped the opposing defense and drove a +5.6 impact. Punished late rotations with quick-trigger confidence, maximizing every second of his floor time. His gravity as a spacer completely unlocked the half-court offense for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 19.6m -10.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Played within himself, taking only high-value shots to notch a tidy +1.0 overall impact. Provided reliable spacing and didn't force any action against set defenses. A quiet but effective shift that stabilized the rotation during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 15.8m -8.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely broke a sweat in three minutes of garbage time action. Registered a slightly negative impact (-1.4) during a disorganized closing stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +133.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 3.1m -1.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 38.6m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.6

Impact cratered (-12.6) due to a barrage of bricked perimeter looks that fueled transition opportunities going the other way. Defensive lapses (-0.6) compounded the damage when his shot wasn't falling. Failed to adjust his shot selection during a brutal second-half cold streak.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 38.6m -19.8
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 35.5m
34
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+20.5

Overcame a frosty night from beyond the arc by relentlessly attacking the midrange and generating elite hustle metrics (+6.7). His sheer scoring gravity bent the defense, opening up passing lanes and driving a stellar +20.5 overall impact. Took over the game down the stretch with tough, contested shot-making.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +6.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +38.7
Avg player in 35.5m -18.2
Impact +20.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nikola Jokić 34.8m
28
pts
9
reb
11
ast
Impact
+14.6

Absolute masterclass in offensive orchestration that generated a massive +22.8 box impact. Picked apart defensive rotations with surgical precision, creating high-value looks at the rim and from deep. His ability to manipulate the pick-and-roll coverage dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +22.8
Hustle +4.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 34.8m -17.8
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Peyton Watson 30.4m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Defensive intensity and strong hustle metrics (+3.6) were completely overshadowed by offensive disjointedness. His negative overall impact (-8.5) stemmed from empty possessions and a lack of playmaking rhythm. Struggled to find his spots in the half-court, stalling out several key possessions on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.4
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 30.4m -15.5
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Spencer Jones 24.6m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Capitalized on limited touches by providing excellent spacing and high-energy off-ball movement. His hustle (+4.7) kept possessions alive during crucial second-quarter stretches. A highly efficient complementary performance that subtly tipped the scales in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 24.6m -12.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Provided a massive spark off the bench by hitting timely shots and executing defensive assignments perfectly (+5.1). Avoided the erratic shot selection that sometimes plagues him, letting the offense come to him organically. His disciplined perimeter defense against opposing guards was a quiet game-changer.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +14.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 26.9m -13.7
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 19.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A complete offensive ghost whose inability to generate any rim pressure resulted in a disastrous -12.2 total impact. Defensive struggles (-1.2) meant he couldn't offset his scoreless outing on the other end. Looked entirely out of sync during his rotation minutes, breaking a five-game streak of efficient play.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.2
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 19.9m -10.2
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Maximized a brief stint on the floor with decisive decision-making and rock-solid defensive positioning (+2.0). Kept the offense humming without forcing the issue, taking only high-percentage looks. His steady hand during non-Jokic minutes was exactly what the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 16.1m -8.2
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Anchored the paint with bruising physicality, driving a strong +5.3 defensive impact in limited action. Punished smaller defenders on the interior, though a few missed bunnies kept his overall score from soaring higher. Set bone-crushing screens that repeatedly freed up shooters in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 35.7%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 13.2m -6.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1