GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 35.6m
31
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.6

Scoring volume completely masked a highly inefficient shot profile that ultimately yielded a negative return. Forcing heavily contested mid-range pull-ups and settling for early-clock isolation jumpers gave the opponent too many transition opportunities off long rebounds.

Shooting
FG 10/26 (38.5%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.1%
USG% 37.4%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 35.6m -17.8
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S LaMelo Ball 32.4m
24
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.7

A relentless barrage of deep perimeter attempts yielded mixed results, as the sheer volume of missed triples offset his playmaking contributions. His insistence on taking low-percentage, logo-range shots early in the shot clock frequently disrupted the team's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 8/23 (34.8%)
3PT 7/18 (38.9%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 32.4m -16.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Grant Williams 32.1m
7
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-9.9

An abysmal perimeter shooting display cratered his overall value, as defenders completely ignored him on the weak side. Clanking multiple wide-open looks from the corner short-circuited offensive sets and allowed the opposition to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 29.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 32.1m -16.1
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 30.3m
18
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Paced the perimeter attack by punishing defensive rotations with timely catch-and-shoot daggers. His ability to consistently find the soft spots in the zone kept the opposing defense stretched thin all night.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 30.3m -15.2
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.7

Anchored the interior with phenomenal defensive positioning that completely deterred drives to the basket. While rarely touching the ball on offense, his elite rim protection and vertical spacing created a massive net-positive swing.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.4
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 24.0m -12.1
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
Josh Green 19.2m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Essentially ran empty miles during his floor time, failing to register any meaningful peripheral stats. By floating on the perimeter and avoiding physical contact in the paint, he became a complete non-factor in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +28.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 19.2m -9.6
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 17.4m
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

A lack of offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to completely sag off him, stalling ball movement on the perimeter. Despite chipping in with a few connective passes, his hesitation to attack closeouts resulted in a stagnant half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 17.4m -8.8
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PJ Hall 16.8m
11
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.2

Dominated the glass during a highly productive rotational stint, generating crucial second-chance opportunities. His relentless motor in the painted area punished smaller defenders and provided a massive spark of interior toughness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 16.8m -8.5
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 15.6m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Active hands in the passing lanes and aggressive on-ball pressure sparked a highly effective defensive stint. He turned defense into instant offense by disrupting the opponent's timing, perfectly executing his role as an energy-shifting reserve.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 15.6m -7.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Strong weak-side rotations and active hands bolstered the defensive unit, preventing easy baseline drives. However, a complete inability to generate his own offense or stretch the floor kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 15.3m -7.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Logged barely over a minute of garbage time at the end of the rotation. There was simply not enough runway to establish any sort of rhythm or statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.2m -0.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.2

An ice-cold shooting night completely tanked his overall rating, as a barrage of forced perimeter jumpers resulted in empty possessions. While his elite hustle metrics reflect a refusal to quit on loose balls, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips negated that extra effort.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.9%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +11.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 40.2m -20.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jalen Johnson 34.5m
19
pts
13
reb
9
ast
Impact
+14.1

Massive defensive playmaking and elite rebounding in traffic fueled a dominant two-way performance. He consistently triggered fast breaks by securing contested boards, acting as the primary offensive engine while simultaneously anchoring the weak-side defense.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +14.4
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 34.5m -17.2
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 28.9m
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.4

Spacing the floor from the frontcourt unlocked massive offensive value, as his perimeter shooting pulled opposing bigs out of the paint. This unexpected outside gravity, combined with sturdy interior rim protection, created highly favorable mismatches all night.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 28.9m -14.5
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Dyson Daniels 25.5m
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.3

Relentless downhill attacks and elite finishing at the rim generated a massive scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. By constantly collapsing the defense and converting high-percentage interior looks, he dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 25.5m -12.7
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

A passive offensive approach and a handful of empty possessions severely dragged down his overall value despite decent defensive metrics. He faded into the background on the wing, failing to capitalize on the high-efficiency rhythm he had established over his previous five outings.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 23.3m -11.5
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CJ McCollum 32.0m
17
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.8

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc acted as an anchor on his overall effectiveness. Even though he managed the offense well as a facilitator, clanking numerous early-clock triples repeatedly stalled the team's momentum and fueled opponent transition runs.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.3%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 32.0m -16.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 21.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Failing to register a single made field goal rendered him an offensive liability, allowing defenders to aggressively cheat off him. This lack of scoring gravity clogged the spacing for everyone else, resulting in a heavily negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg -4.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 23.0m -11.5
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 19.1m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A quiet stint in the rotation yielded a mildly negative return due to an inability to influence the game physically. He converted the few dump-off passes he received, but offered virtually no rim deterrence or rebounding presence to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -12.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 19.1m -9.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Maximized a short rotational burst by hunting and drilling high-value perimeter looks. This sudden injection of flawless floor-spacing provided a noticeable jolt to the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 8.8m -4.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Asa Newell 4.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Brief minutes yielded a net negative result as he struggled to find the pace of the game. A quick missed jumper and lack of physical engagement on the glass highlighted a disjointed cameo appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0