GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 37.5m
31
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.6

Massive shot volume drove a high box-score impact (+21.3), though his icy perimeter execution dragged down his overall efficiency. He forced the issue from beyond the arc to break a recent hot streak, yet his sheer aggressiveness still bent the defense enough to yield a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 37.5m -21.4
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 34.9m
14
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.2

Dominant interior positioning and relentless offensive rebounding sustained his highly efficient scoring streak. His ability to anchor the paint defensively (+5.0) while capitalizing on second-chance opportunities made him a steadying force in the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 34.9m -19.7
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 29.1m
26
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.6

Erratic shot selection inside the arc undermined a prolific night from three-point range, pulling his total impact into the red (-2.6). While the scoring volume was loud, the sheer number of empty possessions generated by forced looks allowed the opposition to control the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.4%
USG% 43.5%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 29.1m -16.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Sion James 28.7m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.9

An absolute offensive void cratered his overall value (-14.9), as he failed to convert a single field goal attempt in heavy minutes. Even with marginal defensive contributions, playing 4-on-5 offensively allowed opponents to completely ignore him and blow up half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 28.7m -16.3
Impact -14.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 7.1m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

A drastically reduced workload limited his ability to influence the game, though he remained efficient in his brief touches. He provided a minor positive bump across all categories before exiting early.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -60.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 7.1m -4.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Elite defensive instincts and high-motor rebounding (+6.0 Def) were completely overshadowed by his inability to contribute offensively. The total rating plunged (-6.1) because his lack of scoring threat severely bogged down half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 27.8m -15.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 22.9m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite showing more offensive life than usual, defensive lapses (-0.5 Def) and poor perimeter efficiency negated his scoring bump. He settled for too many contested jumpers, failing to leverage his athleticism toward the rim when the outside shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 22.9m -13.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
1
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.3

High-octane slashing and decisive playmaking maximized his value in a condensed secondary role. His ability to consistently collapse the defense kept the offense humming (+13.5 Box Impact), easily offsetting minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 19.3m -11.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PJ Hall 16.2m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Strong rotational awareness fueled a solid defensive metric (+4.2), but his complete lack of offensive involvement dragged down his overall value. He operated purely as a placeholder on the scoring end, allowing the defense to cheat off him and crowd primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +39.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 16.2m -9.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Opportunistic off-ball movement allowed him to find clean looks and provide a quick scoring punch off the bench. He survived defensively just enough to ensure his efficient interior touches translated to a slight positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +7.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 12.0m -6.8
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 4.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A fleeting rotational appearance offered no time to establish any offensive rhythm. The negative rating reflects the team bleeding points during his brief stint rather than any glaring individual mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 4.4m -2.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
15
pts
5
reb
11
ast
Impact
+7.1

Shifting away from his typical scoring-heavy role, he generated immense value through high-level playmaking and defensive engagement (+9.3 Def). The willingness to sacrifice his own shot volume to facilitate for others anchored a highly productive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 37.6m -21.4
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Myles Turner 30.9m
23
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.5

Breaking violently out of a recent scoring slump, his two-way dominance dictated the flow of the game. Elite rim protection combined with highly effective floor-spacing (+14.5 Total Impact) made him an absolute nightmare matchup on both ends.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +6.7
Raw total +32.1
Avg player in 30.9m -17.6
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
S Ryan Rollins 30.9m
13
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.3

Poor shot selection inside the arc severely depressed his overall value (-9.3 Total Impact) despite decent defensive metrics. Coming off a strong scoring stretch, his inability to finish through traffic derailed offensive possessions and allowed opponents to capitalize in transition.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 30.9m -17.6
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S AJ Green 26.6m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

A severe drop-off in perimeter efficiency tanked his overall impact, as he struggled to find his rhythm from deep compared to his recent averages. Despite offering some positive defensive resistance (+3.7), the lack of floor-spacing gravity left the offense stagnant during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 26.6m -15.2
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
24
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.0

Relentless interior finishing drove a massive box-score contribution (+20.1) in highly efficient, condensed minutes. His ability to consistently puncture the paint masked a relatively quiet defensive night by his lofty standards.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 25.3m -14.4
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kyle Kuzma 25.7m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Offensive passivity dragged his overall rating into the negative despite a surprisingly robust defensive performance (+7.0). He simply did not exert enough scoring pressure to punish mismatches, rendering his floor time somewhat hollow on that end.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 25.7m -14.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 23.3m
25
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Blistering perimeter shot-making fueled a massive offensive surge (+20.5 Box Impact) that completely overwhelmed the opposing second unit. While his defensive metrics were essentially flat, the sheer volume of high-efficiency scoring easily carried his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 23.3m -13.2
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Operating strictly as a spot-up threat, his low-usage efficiency provided a stabilizing presence in limited minutes. He stayed within himself offensively while offering solid rotational defense (+3.9) to keep his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 20.0m -11.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gary Harris 17.4m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Extreme offensive invisibility doomed his overall rating, as he failed to attempt enough shots to keep defenders honest. The lack of gravity allowed opponents to load up elsewhere, punishing the team during his shifts despite adequate individual defense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 17.4m -9.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that yielded negligible statistical production. His slight negative impact stems entirely from the team losing ground during his fleeting rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0