GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 35.3m
26
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+15.8

Elite shot creation and high-level playmaking drove a dominant offensive showing that overwhelmed the perimeter defense. He routinely collapsed the defense with sharp drives, making the right read to find open shooters when the help arrived. Continuing a hot streak of efficiency, his dual-threat capability was the undisputed engine of the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +23.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.4
Raw total +36.7
Avg player in 35.3m -20.9
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 35.0m
28
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.6

Blistering perimeter shooting stretched the defense to its breaking point and opened up massive driving lanes for teammates. He consistently punished under-screens and late closeouts, dictating the offensive tempo throughout the first half. Strong defensive metrics indicate he was also actively blowing up actions on the other end, cementing a stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +24.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +8.3
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 35.0m -20.8
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 32.1m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

A balanced outing where solid defensive positioning and timely rotations offset middling offensive efficiency. He struggled to finish through contact in the paint, leaving points on the board during isolation sets. However, disciplined closeouts and active hands kept his overall impact hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 32.1m -18.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 29.2m
28
pts
4
reb
13
ast
Impact
+4.5

An absolute barrage from beyond the arc punished drop coverage and fueled a highly potent offensive attack. His elite vision in transition generated numerous easy looks, breaking the game open during a crucial third-quarter run. While his defensive engagement was minimal, the overwhelming offensive production and playmaking easily outweighed the lapses.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 8/11 (72.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 29.2m -17.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Despite strong defensive positioning and active hustle, a remarkably low usage rate limited his ability to swing the game. He executed well as a roll man but rarely commanded the ball in the post to punish switches. The lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the opposing frontcourt to rest on defense.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 27.3m -16.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Sion James 20.4m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Clunky perimeter shooting allowed defenders to pack the paint and disrupt the team's primary driving angles. He generated some value through physical on-ball defense, but the offensive limitations were glaring. The inability to punish defensive sagging made him a half-court liability.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 20.4m -12.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

A dip in his usual offensive production combined with low hustle metrics resulted in a negative overall impact. He secured the glass reasonably well but struggled to finish in traffic against a physical frontline. The lack of secondary rim protection left the paint vulnerable during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 17.6m -10.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Opportunistic scoring and timely cuts to the basket provided a highly efficient spark off the bench. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns, knocking down open jumpers and finishing strong at the rim in transition. His energetic off-ball movement forced the defense to constantly communicate, opening up gaps for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 15.9m -9.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 13.0m
4
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

Poor shot selection and an inability to convert from deep severely dragged down his offensive rating. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, stalling momentum and feeding opponent transition opportunities. While he showed some fight defensively, the wasted offensive possessions were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 13.0m -7.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 11.1m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Limited touches and a failure to generate defensive events resulted in a slightly negative stint off the bench. He spaced the floor adequately but lacked the aggressiveness to attack closeouts when the ball swung his way. The defense largely ignored him, which bogged down the half-court spacing for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -48.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 11.1m -6.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A fleeting appearance where he essentially served as a warm body in the frontcourt to eat a few minutes. He grabbed a single board but was otherwise completely uninvolved in the offensive flow. The extremely brief stint offered no real opportunity to influence the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 3.1m -1.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 39.5m
43
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+14.4

An absolute offensive masterclass driven by relentless rim pressure and elite shot creation against overmatched forwards. He consistently exploited isolation mismatches, forcing defensive rotations that he expertly picked apart with high-level passing. This sheer volume of highly efficient scoring completely tilted the floor and dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 16/27 (59.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +31.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +37.7
Avg player in 39.5m -23.3
Impact +14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.1m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Elite defensive anchoring and high-motor hustle plays kept his impact afloat despite a clunky offensive showing. His willingness to contest shots at the rim and fight for loose balls compensated for empty possessions spacing the floor. The perimeter shooting experiment yielded no fruit, but his interior physical presence stabilized the second unit's defense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.9
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 36.1m -21.4
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 31.6m
14
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.5

Solid defensive metrics were dragged into the negative by a glaring lack of perimeter gravity that ruined offensive spacing. Defenses continuously sagged off him to clog the driving lanes, stalling the team's half-court flow during his minutes. While he generated some transition opportunities, his inability to punish drop coverage proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 31.6m -18.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Impact plummeted due to a total inability to connect from the perimeter, which allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. His lack of scoring gravity stalled the half-court offense during a crucial second-quarter stretch. Failing to offset the bricked shots with any meaningful defensive disruption left him as a clear liability.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 20.5m -12.2
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trae Young 20.1m
8
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.9

A heavy reliance on contested outside shots that refused to fall severely limited his overall offensive threat. He managed to salvage his rating slightly through elite facilitation and surprisingly active hustle metrics in the passing lanes. However, the complete absence of a perimeter scoring punch allowed the defense to aggressively trap the pick-and-roll.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 20.1m -11.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
28
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Efficient shot-making across all three levels provided a massive boost to the offensive engine. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities and attacked closeouts with decisive drives, repeatedly punishing defensive lapses on the perimeter. His scoring gravity opened up the floor, making him a major net positive despite average defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +26.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 34.1m -20.2
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A largely invisible offensive performance where extreme passivity and zero playmaking cratered his value. He spent too much time floating on the perimeter without forcing the defense to react or shift. Minimal defensive resistance at the point of attack further compounded the negative impact of his empty offensive minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 23.3m -13.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kennard 13.9m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.5

Extreme passivity from a designated shooter completely neutralized his primary value on the floor. Attempting only two shots allowed defenders to blatantly cheat off him and crowd the primary ball-handlers in the half-court. Without scoring volume to mask his defensive limitations, his court time was highly detrimental to the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -45.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 13.9m -8.2
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Failing to secure a single rebound in his frontcourt minutes severely hampered his overall utility and bled second-chance points. He converted his limited touches efficiently around the basket, but offered nothing in terms of rim protection or screen-setting. The inability to end defensive possessions with a board kept his impact firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 10.4m -6.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 10.4m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief stint characterized by minimal involvement and slight defensive bleeding against quicker forwards. He knocked down an open look but largely struggled to insert himself into the physical flow of the game. The lack of interior presence made him a target during opponent screening actions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -54.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 10.4m -6.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0