GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 36.0m
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

High-volume perimeter shooting generated significant offensive gravity, though a high number of missed field goals capped his overall efficiency. He made his real mark on the defensive end (+5.3 Def), utilizing his length to contest shots and disrupt wing isolations. The blend of two-way activity resulted in a solid, positive impact despite the spotty shot selection.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 36.0m -18.1
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 34.2m
20
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Lethal floor-spacing from deep bent the opposing defense and drove a massive box score impact (+17.6). He consistently punished late closeouts during key momentum swings in the second half, taking excellent shots within the flow of the offense. Active off-ball movement and solid hustle (+4.2) ensured his minutes were highly productive.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 34.2m -17.3
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 29.5m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

Severe shot-selection issues plagued his performance, as a barrage of missed field goals completely tanked his offensive efficiency. Settling for deep, early-clock threes bailed out the defense and sparked opponent fast breaks. Compounding the poor shooting was a lack of defensive resistance (-1.0 Def) at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense -1.0
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 29.5m -14.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 19.9m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.5

An abysmal shooting night completely derailed his offensive utility and dragged his net score to a dismal -10.5. Forcing contested mid-range pull-ups instead of attacking the rim led to empty trips and transition run-outs for the opponent. He failed to leverage his athleticism, resulting in a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -52.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 19.9m -10.1
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Moussa Diabaté 18.7m
0
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Erased from the offensive game plan entirely, failing to convert a single field goal after a stretch of hyper-efficient play. His inability to finish through contact in the paint allowed the defense to ignore him as a roll man. Minor contributions in rim protection (+2.0 Def) couldn't offset the offensive zero.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -42.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.0
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 18.7m -9.4
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.2

A brilliant bounce-back performance defined by rugged physical play and timely perimeter shooting. He anchored the small-ball lineups effectively (+3.5 Def) while generating crucial extra possessions (+5.0 Hustle). Knocking down open corner threes punished the defense for over-helping, driving a stellar +9.2 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 25.3m -12.8
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Sion James 23.2m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-13.2

Despite a massive improvement in shooting efficiency, severe defensive breakdowns (-1.6 Def) and hidden negative plays absolutely cratered his net score (-13.2). He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts and failed to navigate off-ball screens. The efficient scoring was a mirage that masked a highly damaging defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 23.2m -11.8
Impact -13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Josh Green 22.6m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Elite energy plays and loose-ball recoveries (+4.8 Hustle) defined his stint, even though his overall impact dipped slightly negative. He capitalized on his few offensive touches, showing a sharp uptick in aggression compared to his recent slump. However, defensive lapses off the ball (-2.0 Total) slightly outweighed his hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +32.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 22.6m -11.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Continued his trend of surgical efficiency around the basket, punishing mismatches in the deep post. His vertical spacing and reliable hands (+8.0 Box) provided a crucial safety valve for the guards when plays broke down. Solid drop-coverage execution (+2.1 Def) rounded out a highly effective, low-mistake performance.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 17.2m -8.6
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 13.5m
5
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Inefficient isolation attempts disrupted the offensive flow and dragged his net impact into the red. He struggled to create separation against length, resulting in forced shots late in the shot clock. While his point-of-attack defense was passable (+1.8 Def), the offensive stagnation proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 13.5m -6.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 36.6m
33
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+6.6

Massive offensive volume (+20.3 Box) was heavily taxed by a barrage of missed field goals that dragged down his efficiency. His relentless isolation attacks generated scoring but also resulted in empty trips that allowed transition opportunities. Ultimately, his playmaking gravity and ability to command double-teams kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 12/27 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 39.8%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 36.6m -18.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tobias Harris 34.9m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.4

A stark drop-off in shooting efficiency from his recent hot streak dragged his overall value deep into the red (-8.4). Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint led to empty possessions that fueled transition runs. Even a respectable defensive effort (+5.0) couldn't salvage his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +23.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 34.9m -17.6
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ausar Thompson 25.5m
6
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Despite solid defensive metrics (+3.8) and decent hustle, his overall impact (+0.7) was muted by offensive inefficiency compared to his recent hot streak. Missing multiple shots inside the arc stalled momentum during key half-court possessions. His ability to disrupt passing lanes ultimately kept his head above water.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 25.5m -13.0
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 24.4m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.2

Exceptional shot selection inside the arc drove a massive offensive rating (+15.9 Box). Rather than forcing heavily contested threes, he leveraged his gravity to score on back-cuts and dribble-drives. This tactical adjustment caught the defense off guard and fueled his highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +51.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 24.4m -12.4
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Duren 20.1m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.8

Elite rim-running and high-percentage finishing (+15.6 Box) anchored a dominant two-way performance. He consistently punished switches in the pick-and-roll, maintaining his streak of hyper-efficient shooting without forcing bad looks. Strong hustle (+4.3) and paint protection (+5.1 Def) rounded out a highly impactful shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +35.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 20.1m -10.2
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Caris LeVert 22.7m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Outstanding point-of-attack defense (+5.5 Def) was entirely negated by a passive offensive approach. He passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the ball movement and forcing late-clock bailouts. The resulting offensive stagnation pushed his net rating into negative territory despite his defensive intensity.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -38.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 22.7m -11.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

A drastic drop in scoring volume and poor perimeter execution flatlined his offensive impact. He salvaged his minutes purely through tenacious perimeter defense (+5.4 Def) and active hands in the passing lanes (+3.2 Hustle). The inability to convert open looks ultimately resulted in a neutral overall showing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 18.8m -9.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Paul Reed 18.1m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

Relentless activity on the glass and in the passing lanes generated a massive hustle rating (+6.6). He capitalized on broken plays and dump-offs, extending his streak of highly efficient shooting nights by strictly taking high-percentage looks. This combination of garbage-man scoring and switchable defense (+5.3 Def) resulted in a stellar +12.8 net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +6.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 18.1m -9.2
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Bricklaying from beyond the arc completely undermined his trademark energy (+4.2 Hustle). Missing all of his three-point attempts allowed defenders to sag into the paint and disrupt the primary actions. His relentless offensive rebounding couldn't make up for the wasted possessions and poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 14.7m -7.5
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

A complete offensive disappearing act tanked his overall value and disrupted the half-court flow. He failed to find any rhythm coming off screens, resulting in stagnant possessions when he was on the floor. Surprisingly stout defensive rotations (+4.1 Def) prevented his impact score from cratering further.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 13.0m -6.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

A largely invisible stint where a lack of offensive aggression severely limited his utility. Failing to establish deep post position or stretch the floor effectively left the spacing cramped for the primary ball-handlers. He provided minor hustle contributions but simply didn't leave a footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -42.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 11.1m -5.6
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0