GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 35.0m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.9

Missing the mark from beyond the arc and struggling with defensive miscommunications dragged down his overall rating. He failed to find clean looks against tight closeouts, leading to empty possessions that fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. His inability to stretch the floor consistently bogged down the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 35.0m -19.3
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 34.9m
26
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.7

Anchoring the perimeter defense with his massive length drove a high net rating, even as he required a massive volume of shots to get his points. He disrupted passing lanes and contested heavily on the outside, completely locking down his primary matchup. The sheer volume of his offensive load was perfectly balanced by his elite two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 34.9m -19.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 33.3m
12
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.8

Elite hustle (+5.5) and dominant defensive anchoring fueled a massive positive swing. He controlled the paint on both ends, converting high-percentage looks while erasing mistakes on the backline. His relentless activity on the glass consistently generated second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 33.3m -18.2
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 31.9m
16
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.3

Tanking his overall impact, a disastrous lack of hustle (+0.2) and severe inefficiency plagued his minutes. He settled for difficult, off-balance looks and routinely failed to get back in transition, bleeding points on the other end. His casual approach to ball security and defense gave the opponent a clear advantage whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 31.9m -17.5
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 31.5m
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Settling for a heavy volume of missed threes and displaying low hustle metrics cratered his net impact. He repeatedly opted for contested jumpers early in the shot clock rather than attacking the basket or moving the ball. This poor shot selection consistently bailed out the defense and stalled any momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 31.5m -17.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Compounding a miserable shooting night, he offered a near-total lack of defensive resistance and poor hustle. He was consistently late on closeouts and failed to provide his usual physical presence inside the paint. The combination of bricked open looks and sluggish rotations made him a massive negative during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 18.0m -9.9
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.2

An absolute flamethrower from deep, his scoring gravity drove a sky-high box score impact that completely overwhelmed his lack of hustle. He broke the game open with a barrage of contested jumpers that demoralized the drop coverage. The sheer perfection of his perimeter stroke warped the defense and created wide-open lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 5/5 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 118.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +20.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 17.6m -9.7
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

Stellar defensive positioning and perfect execution of his role drove a highly efficient stint. He protected the rim without fouling and converted all his interior touches as a roll man. His vertical gravity opened up the perimeter for shooters while locking down the paint defensively.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -43.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 14.3m -7.7
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Sion James 12.2m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

Logging limited action, his offensive invisibility and poor advanced box metrics led to a steep negative rating. He failed to make any meaningful rotations or hustle plays to justify his floor time. The offense effectively played 4-on-5, allowing the defense to aggressively trap the primary ball handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 12.2m -6.7
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 11.4m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Getting repeatedly beaten off the dribble forced the defense into rotation and gave up easy looks, making him a liability on the floor. His negative defensive impact was compounded by a complete lack of offensive production. Hesitance to shoot allowed defenders to completely ignore him and aggressively pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 11.4m -6.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 35.0m
16
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.2

Despite high-level hustle (+5.0) and strong facilitation, defensive lapses severely undercut his value. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack, bleeding points on the other end through constant blow-bys. The playmaking was ultimately negated by how easily opponents bypassed him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 35.0m -19.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 32.1m
11
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.3

Poor perimeter shooting and overall offensive inefficiency dragged his impact into the red. Even with strong hustle and defensive engagement, his inability to convert drives into points stalled the half-court offense. Defenders sagging off him effectively clogged the driving lanes for the rest of the unit, forcing late-clock bailouts.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -22.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 32.1m -17.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Dropping well below his usual scoring efficiency, he struggled to exert his typical offensive dominance. Opponents successfully forced him into contested midrange looks instead of high-value paint touches, resulting in empty possessions that fueled transition run-outs. While his rim protection and length still disrupted sets, the offensive struggles kept his net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 30.6m -16.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 30.4m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

Impact was dragged down by poor perimeter efficiency and low hustle metrics (+0.4) that allowed opponents to dictate the tempo. His inability to find rhythm from beyond the arc stalled the offense during key half-court possessions, letting defenders pack the paint. A lack of secondary playmaking further limited his overall effectiveness despite holding up decently in isolation defense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +11.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 30.4m -16.6
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Elite spot-up shooting provided crucial spacing that elevated his offensive impact. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns and maintained solid positional awareness to stay in the positive. His off-ball movement consistently punished late rotations and kept the floor wide open for drivers.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 28.9m -15.8
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive liabilities allowed opponents to exploit him in isolation, erasing the value of his highly efficient shooting. He was frequently targeted on switches, bleeding points in the half-court whenever forced to slide his feet. The scoring bump was entirely overshadowed by his inability to anchor the weak-side defense.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 24.8m -13.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 23.2m
20
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

Surgical scoring efficiency drove a massive positive impact as he continually broke down the defense. He hunted mismatches effectively and converted high-percentage looks in the paint. His aggressive downhill drives set the tone for the second unit and forced multiple defensive collapses.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 23.2m -12.7
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Luke Kornet 19.1m
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Failing to attempt a single shot rendered him a non-threat, allowing defenders to roam freely and double-team elsewhere. Although he provided decent rim deterrence and hustle in his minutes, playing 4-on-5 on offense was too costly. His hesitance to roll hard to the rim completely neutralized his vertical spacing and bogged down pick-and-roll sets.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.3%
Net Rtg -4.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 19.1m -10.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Outstanding defensive activity and relentless hustle (+4.6) completely masked a dreadful shooting night. He made his mark by blowing up screens and securing loose balls that generated extra possessions. His sheer physical intensity off the bench disrupted the opponent's rhythm despite his own offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 15.9m -8.8
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0