GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 37.1m
33
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.2

An absolute flamethrower from beyond the arc, punishing drop coverage and late closeouts to drive a massive +10.2 overall impact. His perimeter gravity completely warped the defensive shell, opening up driving lanes for everyone else. Sustaining this level of elite shot-making volume elevated the entire offensive ecosystem.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +29.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 37.1m -21.1
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.3

Controlled the painted area with surgical precision, utilizing a soft touch around the rim to maintain his elite efficiency trend. His sheer size altered countless driving angles (+4.1 Def), while his activity on the glass (+4.2 Hustle) generated crucial second-chance opportunities. Serving as an impenetrable anchor in drop coverage was the catalyst for his stellar +11.3 net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 35.9m -20.5
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 68.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sion James 29.7m
5
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+11.5

Delivered a masterclass in role-player impact (+11.5) without needing to force up shots. Smothering point-of-attack defense (+9.6 Def) and relentless loose-ball recoveries (+6.9 Hustle) completely derailed the opponent's offensive flow. He proved to be the ultimate connective tissue, making every right read and rotation to secure the win.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 4.1%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +6.9
Defense +9.6
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 29.7m -17.0
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 27.0m
18
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.2

Wildly inefficient perimeter hunting crippled the half-court offense and drove a steep -7.2 net impact. Defensive apathy at the point of attack (-1.8 Def) allowed opposing guards to easily break the paint and collapse the scheme. While he generated a few flashy transition looks, the sheer number of wasted possessions far outweighed the highlights.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.9%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.8
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 27.0m -15.5
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 23.5m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.6

A brutal regression in shot selection tanked his overall value (-11.6), as he repeatedly forced contested mid-range jumpers early in the clock. The sheer volume of empty possessions fueled opponent transition runs, compounded by sluggish closeouts on the defensive end. His inability to adapt when his primary actions were denied resulted in a highly detrimental floor game.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 41.4%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 23.5m -13.5
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Hitting a couple of timely perimeter shots couldn't mask the underlying damage of his floor time (-7.6). He was consistently a step slow on closeouts, allowing uncontested rhythm jumpers that fueled an opponent run. Despite tidy offensive execution, his lack of physical resistance on the wing proved far too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 19.9m -11.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 19.8m
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Broke out of a severe slump by combining timely spot-up shooting with absolute defensive menace (+6.7 Def). His ability to seamlessly switch across multiple positions blew up pick-and-roll actions and stalled the opponent's primary sets. Capitalizing on defensive stops to leak out in transition cemented a highly productive +6.9 shift.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.7
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 19.8m -11.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

An absolute deep-freeze from beyond the arc cratered his offensive utility and drove a steep -8.6 net impact. Opponents aggressively sagged off him, effectively clogging the driving lanes for the primary creators. Without his shot falling, his lack of secondary playmaking left him stranded as an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -46.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 16.9m -9.7
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 12.6m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.7

Hemorrhaged value (-12.7) in just over a quarter of action due to aimless dribbling and blown defensive assignments. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation, offering little resistance at the point of attack (-1.9 Def). Forcing contested floaters rather than moving the ball completely short-circuited the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.9
Raw total -5.4
Avg player in 12.6m -7.3
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
PJ Hall 11.6m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Struggled to process the speed of the game during his brief rotation, resulting in a negative net impact (-3.2). Late rotations and an inability to secure contested rebounds gave the opposition too many extra bites at the apple. He failed to establish a physical presence inside, rendering his minutes largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -57.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.4
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 11.6m -6.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Rushed his offensive processing during a brief cameo, leading to empty possessions that dragged his rating into the red (-3.9). A lack of defensive awareness in transition compounded the damage of his missed perimeter looks. He simply couldn't find the game's rhythm before being pulled.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Made a fleeting 16-second appearance at the end of a quarter, logging no meaningful statistics. His usage remains strictly relegated to situational defensive substitutions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.3m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 34.4m
18
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.1

A strong playmaking rhythm and active hands in the passing lanes (+4.2 Hustle) were completely neutralized by hidden mistakes. Costly live-ball turnovers and sluggish transition defense dragged his net impact down to a flat -0.1. His ability to orchestrate the pick-and-roll was evident, but sloppy execution on the margins erased the gains.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 34.4m -19.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
32
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.7

High-volume scoring masked a deeply inefficient shooting night that capped his offensive ceiling. He salvaged a positive overall rating (+5.7) entirely through aggressive defensive rotations and loose-ball recoveries (+4.8 Hustle). Forcing the issue in isolation late in the shot clock dragged down what could have been a dominant statistical profile.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 38.3%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 34.3m -19.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 61.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 32.1m
26
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.2

Completely controlled the paint on both ends to generate a massive +23.2 overall impact. His relentless rim-running and elite finishing punished the interior defense, continuing a dominant streak of high-percentage execution. Anchoring the backline with stellar rim protection (+8.2 Def) ensured his offensive production translated directly to team success.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.6%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -0.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +31.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +8.2
Raw total +41.6
Avg player in 32.1m -18.4
Impact +23.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dean Wade 26.0m
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Flawless shot execution wasn't enough to keep his overall impact out of the negative range. His extreme offensive passivity allowed the defense to ignore him for long stretches, bogging down the half-court spacing. A few costly rotational errors in transition ultimately overshadowed his perfect shooting splits.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -35.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 26.0m -14.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 24.3m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite finding his rhythm from deep to break a recent shooting slump, his overall impact slipped into the red (-2.8). Defensive lapses and an inability to contain perimeter matchups erased the value of his offensive efficiency. He operated primarily as a spot-up threat but gave back too much ground on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 24.3m -13.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 23.7m
4
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Completely abandoned his recent scoring punch to focus strictly on being a defensive menace (+7.5 Def). His value was driven entirely by elite hustle (+5.8), diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble hand-offs on the perimeter. This performance proved he can heavily influence winning even when he doesn't look at the rim.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +42.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 23.7m -13.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Point-of-attack ball pressure defined this stint, generating a stellar +7.2 defensive rating that carried his overall impact. He sacrificed offensive volume to focus purely on disrupting the opposing backcourt's rhythm. Navigating screens with relentless energy allowed him to be a net positive despite a quiet night scoring the ball.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 20.1m -11.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylon Tyson 16.7m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Struggled to find the flow of the game, resulting in a steep negative impact (-5.7) during his rotation minutes. Poor spacing and missed defensive assignments allowed opponents to capitalize whenever he was on the floor. He failed to leverage his athleticism in the half-court, rendering his limited touches mostly ineffective.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +41.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.7m -9.6
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Excellent interior contests (+6.7 Def) couldn't quite rescue a clunky offensive showing. Forced shots in the paint and an inability to establish deep post position dragged his overall impact into the red. He protected the rim admirably but served as an offensive black hole during his second-half stint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 15.7m -8.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Scraped together a barely positive impact (+0.3) by outworking opponents on the margins. Active rebounding taps and timely weak-side rotations (+2.9 Hustle) compensated for his struggles to stay in front of quicker forwards. He maximized a short leash by simply playing harder than the man across from him.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +22.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 12.8m -7.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0