GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 33.8m
17
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-12.0

Impact cratered due to a disastrous perimeter shooting performance that constantly derailed the half-court offense. Forcing low-percentage looks early in the clock snapped his recent hot streak and handed the opponent easy transition opportunities off long rebounds.

Shooting
FG 5/22 (22.7%)
3PT 1/12 (8.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 33.9%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg -0.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 33.8m -18.1
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 88.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 31.3m
11
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.7

Bogged down the offensive flow with poor shot selection from beyond the arc, severely limiting his usual playmaking gravity. While he was surprisingly active defensively, his inability to score efficiently dragged down the entire unit during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 31.3m -16.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 30.7m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

A deeply negative overall rating suggests his minutes were plagued by poor rotational timing and transition breakdowns that outweighed his solid shooting splits. Despite hitting half his looks from deep, he bled value by failing to secure defensive rebounds or contain his primary matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 30.7m -16.5
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.4

Dominated the interior through sheer efficiency and a relentless motor on the glass. By converting nearly all of his looks around the basket and altering shots on the other end, he provided a massive two-way boost that heavily tilted the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +5.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 29.9m -16.0
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Grant Williams 29.3m
20
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Exploded out of a recent scoring rut by hunting high-quality looks and punishing defensive closeouts. His pristine perimeter efficiency completely warped the floor, making him the driving force behind the team's offensive success during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 29.3m -15.7
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Maximized his limited touches by strictly taking what the defense gave him, resulting in a highly efficient offensive shift. Paired with active weak-side rotations, his disciplined two-way play kept the bench unit in the positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -18.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 19.7m -10.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 18.9m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Brought tremendous energy and generated second-chance opportunities, but gave it all back on the defensive end. Blown coverages and poor closeouts undermined what was otherwise a solid bounce-back shooting performance.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.7
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 18.9m -10.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 18.1m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Overcame a spotty shooting night by making his presence felt in the margins with relentless off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries. His disruptive point-of-attack defense ultimately pushed his overall impact into positive territory despite the offensive clunkiness.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 18.1m -9.8
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
PJ Hall 14.3m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Struggled to make any meaningful imprint on the game, functioning primarily as a cardio guy during his shift. A complete lack of offensive aggression allowed his defender to roam freely, sabotaging the unit's spacing and driving his impact score into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -29.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 14.3m -7.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Josh Green 13.9m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Continued to be an offensive non-factor, passing up open looks and shrinking the floor for his teammates. He offered some resistance on the perimeter, but his extreme passivity on the other end made him a net negative overall.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 13.9m -7.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Logged just ten seconds of floor time. There was simply no runway to accumulate any meaningful statistical impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.2m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 36.7m
9
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Impact was muted by a lack of offensive aggression, breaking his recent streak of highly efficient scoring nights. He still provided immense value as a point-of-attack defender, but the overall negative rating stems from a failure to bend the defense or capitalize on transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.6
Defense +8.7
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 36.7m -19.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kevin Durant 35.9m
35
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+23.7

Overall impact was heavily driven by pristine shot selection that punished defensive mismatches in the mid-range all night. The added rim protection and perimeter contests (+8.3 Def) elevated this from a great scoring shift to a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 14/20 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +30.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +43.0
Avg player in 35.9m -19.3
Impact +23.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Tari Eason 33.5m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Offensive stagnation completely cratered his overall value in this matchup. While he remained a disruptive force on the defensive end, his inability to convert open perimeter looks allowed the opposition to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 33.5m -18.0
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alperen Sengun 31.6m
13
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-0.6

A rare off-night offensively dragged his net impact into the red, as forced shots in the paint snapped his streak of highly efficient outings. Despite the scoring struggles, he salvaged his overall footprint through elite defensive positioning and active hands in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.0
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 31.6m -16.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Thrived by playing strictly within the flow of the offense, taking only high-value looks to generate a massive efficiency spike compared to his recent slump. His defensive versatility anchored the perimeter, allowing him to heavily influence the game without demanding high usage.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.1
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 31.1m -16.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Kept his head above water thanks to surprisingly stout defensive metrics that offset a clunky shooting night from deep. He struggled to find his rhythm against ball pressure, but timely rotations and secondary playmaking ensured he remained a slight positive.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 23.7m -12.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Bounced back from a brutal four-game shooting slump to provide adequate floor spacing, though his overall impact remained slightly negative. The defensive effort was solid, but he likely bled value through missed rotations or defensive rebounding lapses that aren't captured in his individual hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.6
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 23.1m -12.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Provided a massive spark off the bench by capitalizing on every offensive touch he was given. His highly efficient shot selection punished the second unit, making him an undeniable positive during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 15.3m -8.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Barely registered a pulse during his brief stint on the floor, failing to generate any vertical spacing or rim pressure. The negative impact score reflects a completely invisible offensive shift where he couldn't establish deep post position or secure meaningful extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 9.2m -5.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0