GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 34.0m
24
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

Despite clanking a high volume of three-pointers, his aggressive defensive rotations and overall playmaking kept his impact highly positive. He continues to command immense defensive attention, which opened up cutting lanes for his teammates even when his own shot wasn't falling.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -28.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 34.0m -14.4
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 31.4m
21
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Sheer volume and relentless rebounding masked a highly inefficient shooting night, driving a massive positive impact score. Even when his perimeter shot abandoned him, his ability to generate extra possessions through sheer force of will dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 31.4m -13.3
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 29.2m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Elite defensive anchoring was completely undone by an absolute refusal to engage offensively. By passing up open looks and clogging the paint, he allowed the opposing defense to effectively play five-on-four.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 29.2m -12.3
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 26.0m
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Stagnant offensive possessions and poor shot selection from beyond the arc heavily penalized his net rating. He failed to leverage his athleticism driving to the rim, settling instead for contested jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -55.8
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 26.0m -11.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sion James 21.7m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Charted a positive impact entirely through elite hustle metrics and disruptive on-ball defense. He completely ignored his offensive game, but his relentless pursuit of loose balls generated crucial extra possessions that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -23.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +8.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 21.7m -9.1
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.3

Fantastic defensive positioning was entirely negated by an abysmal shooting performance that wrecked floor spacing. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which bogged down the half-court offense and dragged his impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +35.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense -5.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 25.4m -10.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
LaMelo Ball 22.3m
2
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.3

A catastrophic perimeter shooting performance cratered his overall value and single-handedly stalled the offense. His refusal to adjust his shot selection despite missing a barrage of consecutive threes created a massive deficit that his decent defensive rebounding couldn't fix.

Shooting
FG 1/15 (6.7%)
3PT 0/10 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 6.7%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense -9.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 22.3m -9.3
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Josh Green 19.3m
7
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.5

Exploded for a massive positive rating by perfectly executing his role as a low-usage, high-energy connector. His relentless work on the glass and opportunistic scoring shattered his recent slump and completely swung the momentum of the second half.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 19.3m -8.2
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Aggressive downhill drives generated enough rim pressure to keep his impact positive despite a dip in his usual efficiency. He forced the issue a bit too much in isolation, but his ability to collapse the defense created necessary chaos.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 15.4m -6.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Efficient interior finishing kept him in the green, though defensive lapses against quicker matchups limited his overall ceiling. He maximized his limited touches by rolling hard to the rim and sealing his defenders deep in the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.4
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 15.3m -6.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
24
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.6

Inefficient isolation-heavy offense and forced contested jumpers severely damaged his net rating. Even with decent defensive engagement, his inability to find a rhythm from deep allowed the defense to pack the paint and stifle ball movement.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 37.5m -15.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 8
S Evan Mobley 35.5m
14
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Elite rim protection and weak-side rotations drove a massive defensive rating that salvaged an otherwise clunky offensive outing. Forcing up ill-advised perimeter jumpers dragged down his efficiency, snapping a recent streak of highly efficient scoring nights.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 35.5m -14.9
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Jarrett Allen 34.6m
13
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Dominated the painted area through sheer physicality, generating second-chance opportunities that fueled his positive impact. His consistent interior finishing continues a strong stretch of high-percentage looks, anchoring the frontcourt on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 34.6m -14.6
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 27.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jaylon Tyson 30.6m
14
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

A brutal volume-shooting performance from the perimeter tanked his overall value and stalled out half-court sets. While he remained active on the glass and in passing lanes, the sheer number of wasted offensive possessions erased those marginal hustle gains.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 30.6m -12.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 17.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dean Wade 27.1m
4
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.4

Defensive positioning and rim deterrence carried his overall impact despite a remarkably quiet offensive night. He completely abandoned his perimeter shot, but his ability to switch onto smaller guards kept the defensive rating heavily in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.1
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 27.1m -11.5
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Generated massive box-score impact through relentless activity on the glass and opportunistic interior positioning. He wisely stopped forcing outside shots after early misses, focusing instead on high-leverage plays around the basket to boost his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 20.8m -8.7
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Despite a massive scoring spike relative to his recent averages, defensive lapses and a lack of overall floor connection resulted in a deep negative impact. He hit a couple of timely perimeter shots, but struggled to orchestrate the offense effectively during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 18.2m -7.7
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

An absolute black hole on offense, missing nearly every perimeter look and killing crucial floor spacing. His decent hustle metrics couldn't come close to offsetting the damage done by his complete inability to convert open catch-and-shoot opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -20.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense -6.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 13.3m -5.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Provided a masterclass in low-usage efficiency, making quick decisions and converting his limited touches perfectly. His veteran defensive positioning and timely rotations stabilized the second unit during a crucial stretch of the game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +58.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 12.6m -5.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-energy hustle plays kept him near neutral, but poor perimeter shooting and defensive miscommunications dragged him slightly into the red. He snapped a streak of highly efficient games by settling for contested looks early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 9.8m -4.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0