GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Moussa Diabaté 33.2m
13
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.4

Dominated the interior with relentless offensive rebounding and highly efficient finishing around the basket. He consistently won the physicality battle in the paint, generating crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 33.2m -16.1
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 32.8m
26
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

A lethal perimeter barrage stretched the defense thin and opened up driving lanes for his teammates. He hunted mismatches effectively on the wing, though occasional defensive lapses on backdoor cuts kept his overall rating from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 32.8m -15.9
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 32.5m
14
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.6

Bullied his way to the rim and provided stellar weak-side help defense to anchor a highly productive shift. His ability to finish through contact and crash the glass effectively masked a few errant perimeter attempts.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.9
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 32.5m -15.7
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 29.9m
15
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.6

Elite playmaking vision was heavily offset by a disastrous shooting night and forced attempts early in the shot clock. He kept the offense humming with pinpoint transition passes, but his inability to score efficiently in isolation neutralized his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.6%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 29.9m -14.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 28.7m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Excellent defensive positioning and active hands were overshadowed by a brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc. He generated quality looks but couldn't convert, allowing the defense to cheat off him in critical moments.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.8
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 28.7m -13.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
Coby White 21.5m
20
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

High-volume scoring masked significant defensive liabilities at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently blew past him on the perimeter, forcing defensive rotations that ultimately bled points and tanked his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 21.5m -10.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 14.8m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Found success attacking closeouts but struggled to make a dent defensively against larger wing assignments. A lack of overall volume and a few missed rotations in zone coverage dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 14.8m -7.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Provided steady drop-coverage defense but was practically invisible on the offensive end. He failed to establish deep post position, rendering him an afterthought in the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 14.8m -7.2
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Sturdy post defense and vocal leadership couldn't compensate for a complete lack of offensive aggression. He passed up open looks to keep the ball moving, but his reluctance to shoot allowed the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 14.2m -7.0
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 13.9m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Played fundamentally sound defense but was too passive offensively to tilt the scales. He blended into the background during his minutes, rarely attacking the gaps or forcing the defense to react.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 13.9m -6.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A brief, ineffective stint where he was immediately targeted on defense. The lack of floor time prevented any chance to establish a rhythm or contribute positively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 1.3m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Logged barely over a minute of action at the end of the rotation. Managed to keep the ball moving but had no runway to make a tangible impact.

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 1.3m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 1.3m -0.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Inserted purely for late-game clock management. He executed his assignment without error but didn't play enough to move the needle.

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 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Jrue Holiday 33.1m
25
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

Elite point-of-attack defense and pristine shot selection drove a highly efficient two-way performance. He consistently punished defensive lapses with timely cuts and perimeter makes, dictating the tempo whenever he initiated the offense.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 33.1m -16.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Toumani Camara 32.5m
12
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite active hands and solid rotational defense, erratic perimeter shooting dragged down his overall rating. He settled for too many contested outside looks rather than attacking closeouts, which short-circuited several promising possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 32.5m -15.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jerami Grant 31.8m
21
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

High-level hustle plays and timely weak-side rotations defined his two-way effort. He absorbed tough defensive assignments while maintaining a steady scoring diet, though a few forced isolation jumpers capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +6.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 31.8m -15.5
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 26.0m
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Rim deterrence was his calling card tonight, anchoring the paint and forcing opponents into tough floaters. However, a limited offensive role and a few missed connections in the pick-and-roll kept his net impact hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 26.0m -12.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kris Murray 16.7m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

A severe drop-off in offensive rhythm tanked his overall impact, as he struggled to find clean looks and missed all his perimeter attempts. The inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off, stalling the half-court offense during his stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -42.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 16.7m -8.2
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Offensive invisibility and bricked spot-up attempts doomed his net rating despite commendable effort on 50/50 balls. Opponents routinely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 26.2m -12.7
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Frigid perimeter shooting and forced drives into traffic severely undercut his offensive value. He salvaged some utility by generating deflections and pushing the pace in transition, but the half-court decision-making remains a work in progress.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 23.0m -11.0
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection made him a massive deterrent during his limited minutes. He completely altered the geometry of the paint defensively, though a lack of offensive touches prevented a larger overall swing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 16.8m -8.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.5

Absolute defensive havoc in a short burst, completely blowing up opposing pick-and-rolls with his length and anticipation. He didn't need high usage to swing the game, leveraging transition opportunities created by his own steals.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 12.0m -5.9
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Blake Wesley 11.0m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

High-energy closeouts and ball pressure kept him afloat, but an inability to finish at the rim erased his positive defensive equity. He struggled to break down his primary defender, leading to stagnant offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 11.0m -5.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Looked completely out of sync during a brief rotation cameo, failing to register any meaningful offensive production. Rushed decisions and poor spacing negated the minor hustle plays he managed to string together.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 7.3m -3.5
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Capitalized on a garbage-time opportunity with immediate interior execution. Showed solid positional awareness on defense during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 2.2m -1.1
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor in a late-game cameo. Did not have enough time to register any measurable impact on either end of the court.

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 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.3m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0