GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 27.2m
30
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+24.8

An absolute masterclass in perimeter shot-making generated a staggering +24.8 total impact, completely breaking the opposing defensive scheme. He paired this lethal offensive efficiency with suffocating length on the perimeter (+6.8 defense), turning contested jumpers into immediate transition opportunities. His ability to hit heavily contested pull-ups demoralized the primary defenders all night.

Shooting
FG 9/11 (81.8%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +67.8
+/- +40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +27.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +38.3
Avg player in 27.2m -13.5
Impact +24.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 20.4m
12
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.9

High-IQ offensive execution and timely cutting allowed him to generate highly efficient looks without dominating the ball. He compounded this value with excellent weak-side defensive awareness (+4.9), frequently rotating early to blow up baseline drives. It was a masterclass in playing within a system to maximize two-way impact.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +60.4
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 20.4m -10.1
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S LaMelo Ball 20.4m
11
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.7

Errant perimeter shooting threatened to tank his value, but elite playmaking vision kept the offense humming. He compensated for the cold shooting hand by aggressively pursuing long rebounds and loose balls (+5.2 hustle) to generate extra possessions. His ability to manipulate defensive rotations with his passing ultimately salvaged a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.2%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +76.5
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 20.4m -10.2
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moussa Diabaté 20.1m
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Absolute dominance as a roll man fueled a massive +11.4 box impact, as he consistently punished defensive miscommunications at the rim. He maintained his streak of elite efficiency by strictly adhering to a high-percentage shot profile in the paint. His vertical spacing completely warped the opposing defense's pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +74.4
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 20.1m -10.1
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 18.9m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Selective, highly efficient attacking in the half-court drove a strong box-score rating, even on reduced volume. However, a lack of defensive resistance (+0.9) and minimal effort on 50/50 balls prevented his overall impact from matching his offensive efficiency. He capitalized on his touches but floated through long stretches on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +51.6
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 18.9m -9.5
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.4

Imposing rim protection (+7.3 defense) anchored a highly productive shift, as he consistently altered floaters and layups in the paint. He complemented this defensive anchor role with clinical finishing around the basket, punishing smaller defenders on switches. His sheer size and disciplined positioning dictated the terms of engagement in the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.3
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 25.9m -13.0
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
Josh Green 21.3m
12
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

Breaking out of a severe offensive slump, he provided a massive boost by capitalizing on open weak-side spot-ups. His disciplined closeouts and lateral quickness (+2.8 defense) effectively contained dribble penetration on the perimeter. The sudden resurgence in offensive confidence provided a crucial secondary scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 21.3m -10.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 18.8m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.5

Complete offensive invisibility resulted in a brutal -8.5 net rating, as defenders entirely ignored him to trap the primary ball-handlers. While he executed his defensive assignments adequately (+3.1), his inability to punish sagging coverages crippled the team's half-court spacing. The lack of any scoring threat made him a severe liability during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 18.8m -9.5
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Reckless drives into congested paint areas and forced perimeter looks completely derailed his offensive rhythm. He offered virtually zero resistance at the point of attack (+0.2 defense), allowing opposing guards to easily break down the defensive shell. This combination of offensive tunnel vision and defensive apathy resulted in a staggering -7.1 net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +17.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 18.2m -9.0
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Sluggish closeouts and a lack of secondary effort (+0.4 hustle) dragged his overall impact into the red despite capable perimeter shooting. He struggled to navigate screens, frequently allowing his man to gain leverage in the pick-and-pop game. The offensive floor-spacing simply couldn't offset the structural damage caused by his slow defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +73.7
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 17.1m -8.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 12.0m
4
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.5

A disastrous stint in the backcourt was defined by careless ball security that immediately ignited opponent fast breaks. He was consistently targeted and blown by on defense (-0.4), forcing the frontcourt into impossible help situations. The sheer volume of negative plays in just 12 minutes made it a highly damaging rotational shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -50.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral shift was characterized by opportunistic cutting and solid, mistake-free positioning. He didn't force any actions offensively, taking only what the defense conceded while maintaining structural integrity on the other end. It was a quiet, stabilizing performance that neither elevated nor harmed the overall team dynamic.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -50.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Operating strictly as a placeholder during his brief stint, he failed to register a single shot attempt and provided zero offensive gravity. His defensive rotations were adequate enough to prevent major breakdowns, keeping his net rating hovering just below neutral. He essentially provided empty cardio minutes while the primary rotation rested.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -31.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 7.8m -3.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 25.7m
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Severe shot-selection issues cratered his overall impact, as he forced contested looks to break out of a scoring slump. He tried to compensate with relentless energy on loose balls (+4.8 hustle), but the wasted offensive possessions were too costly. The sheer volume of empty trips completely overshadowed his solid on-ball defense.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -59.7
+/- -36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 25.7m -12.9
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 25.3m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

A reliable interior presence anchored his positive rating, as he extended his streak of highly efficient shooting nights by taking only high-value shots. His defensive rotations were superb (+5.5), frequently blowing up pick-and-roll actions before they could materialize. He provided crucial stability in the frontcourt despite limited touches.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 25.3m -12.6
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tyrese Maxey 25.3m
6
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-10.3

An abysmal shooting night completely derailed his net impact, as he repeatedly settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers. Opposing guards completely neutralized his typical downhill burst, forcing him into a passive playmaking role that stalled the offense. The massive drop-off in scoring efficiency created a hole the second unit couldn't dig out of.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -62.8
+/- -36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 25.3m -12.6
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kelly Oubre Jr. 25.1m
17
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Efficient slashing and finishing around the rim drove a strong overall impact, continuing his recent streak of high-percentage looks. His perimeter defense was equally valuable, consistently disrupting passing lanes to generate a +4.5 defensive rating. The combination of downhill aggression and wing containment anchored his positive net score.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -68.5
+/- -40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 25.1m -12.5
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Andre Drummond 19.3m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Despite dominating his individual defensive matchups (+4.8), offensive stagnation ultimately dragged his net score slightly into the red. He struggled to generate meaningful gravity in the paint, allowing the opposing frontcourt to cheat off him. A lack of offensive fluidity negated his otherwise excellent rim protection.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 19.3m -9.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics (+9.2) defined this outing, as he consistently generated extra possessions through deflections and offensive board crashes. His relentless motor was complemented by disciplined point-of-attack defense that disrupted the opponent's primary actions. He perfectly executed his role as a high-energy connector, driving a stellar overall rating.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +9.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 26.2m -13.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jared McCain 22.9m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Sizzling perimeter shot-making masked underlying structural issues that dragged his net rating into the negative. He was repeatedly targeted in defensive mismatches, bleeding points on the other end that negated his offensive explosion. The scoring volume was impressive, but his inability to navigate screens proved too costly overall.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.9m -11.4
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt was the catalyst for his highly positive impact, punishing defensive drop coverages with timely perimeter shooting. He paired this offensive pop with lockdown switchability on the other end (+6.7 defense), effectively neutralizing opposing wings. This two-way versatility provided a massive spark during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 20.1m -10.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Forced looks in the paint and a complete lack of offensive rhythm severely damaged his overall impact. He attempted to salvage his stint with aggressive weak-side help (+4.2 hustle), but the empty offensive trips consistently fueled opponent transition opportunities. His inability to finish through contact was a glaring weak point in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -36.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 17.2m -8.6
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Adem Bona 16.5m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Marginal offensive involvement limited his ability to positively influence the game flow. While he showed flashes of strong rim deterrence (+3.0 defense), his inability to secure contested rebounds gave opponents damaging second-chance opportunities. He essentially operated as a non-factor on the offensive end, leading to a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 16.5m -8.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

A low-mistake, systematic approach allowed him to tread water in limited minutes. He stayed within the flow of the offense, avoiding the contested shots that have plagued his recent outings. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't bleed points, resulting in a perfectly neutral, stabilizing shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 16.4m -8.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0