GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 32.0m
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Brutal inefficiency from long range dragged down what was otherwise a solid playmaking and rebounding effort. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. While he battled defensively, the volume of empty perimeter possessions tipped his impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 32.0m -15.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Miles Bridges 30.6m
11
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.3

A severe regression in finishing efficiency doomed his overall rating. He repeatedly settled for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups instead of leveraging his athleticism at the rim. The resulting transition opportunities for the opponent completely erased the value of his decent rotational defense.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 34.2%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 30.6m -14.4
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 29.3m
15
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.7

Overcame a horrific shooting night through sheer defensive disruption and elite pacing. His massive defensive score stemmed from a pattern of blowing up passing lanes and sparking fast breaks. Despite bricking heavily from deep, his playmaking and hustle kept the offensive engine running smoothly.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.6%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +12.5
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 29.3m -13.7
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 4
S Moussa Diabaté 22.5m
7
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient interior play by taking only high-value shots around the basket. His vertical spacing and relentless offensive rebounding created vital second-chance opportunities. Solid rim deterrence rounded out a highly effective two-way stint that punished smaller matchups.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 22.5m -10.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 21.4m
17
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.8

Surgical shot selection drove a highly efficient offensive performance that kept the defense constantly off balance. He utilized screens perfectly to find his spots, avoiding the forced looks that plague young scorers. Active hands in the passing lanes amplified his overall positive footprint and sparked transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +33.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 21.4m -10.0
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
Josh Green 25.4m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

A sudden eruption of perimeter shot-making masked underlying defensive passivity. While he punished closeouts effectively to break out of a slump, he struggled to navigate screens on the other end, allowing easy dribble penetration. The give-and-take between his hot shooting and defensive lapses resulted in a nearly neutral impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +76.8
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 25.4m -11.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 24.2m
13
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.2

An absolute terror in the hustle categories, generating extra possessions through sheer willpower. He broke out of a severe shooting slump by confidently stepping into rhythm threes instead of hesitating. His high-energy closeouts and rebounding from the wing position completely tilted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +65.2
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +7.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 24.2m -11.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

Punished defensive rotations by burying open corner threes at a lethal clip. His floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for the guards, functioning as the perfect release valve against zone coverages. He played within himself offensively, avoiding bad fouls and maintaining solid positional leverage.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +62.1
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 20.6m -9.6
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.7

Flawless execution as a roll man resulted in a perfect shooting night and a massive box score impact. He sealed off defenders early, providing massive targets in the paint that collapsed the defense. His vertical presence altered shots at the rim, anchoring the interior during his highly effective minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +45.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 18.3m -8.5
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a stabilizing veteran presence with timely, efficient shot-making from the perimeter. He didn't force the issue, simply taking what the defense gave him to boost his box score impact. Smart positioning and mistake-free basketball during his rotation ensured a modest but positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.4m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 10.4m -4.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 3.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Yanked quickly after a disjointed stint where he failed to initiate any meaningful offense. He was targeted immediately on switches defensively, bleeding points in isolation matchups. A complete lack of hustle stats in his brief appearance sealed a highly negative short-shift.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -88.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 3.7m -1.7
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Rushed a poor shot attempt during a fleeting appearance on the floor. He lacked the time to settle into the flow of the game, resulting in a slightly negative stint. The brief cameo offered no real opportunity to impact the hustle or defensive metrics meaningfully.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +116.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -2.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Max Christie 33.4m
11
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

A disastrous shooting night from beyond the arc completely derailed his offensive impact. While his perimeter defense remained stingy, the sheer volume of wasted possessions from deep outweighed his stops. Opponents sagged off him entirely, which clogged the driving lanes for his teammates and stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 33.4m -15.6
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 29.1m
9
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.9

Impact cratered due to inefficient shooting from the perimeter and an inability to convert looks into positive value. Despite showing more scoring aggression than his recent slump, his poor shot selection stalled Dallas's half-court execution. A pattern of clanking contested jumpers ultimately dragged his overall rating deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 29.1m -13.6
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S P.J. Washington 27.9m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.8

Defensive versatility and active rotations kept him on the floor, but settling for contested jumpers negated that value. He consistently bailed out the defense by avoiding the rim, leading to empty possessions that hurt the team's momentum. A failure to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities ultimately sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 27.9m -13.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Aggressive downhill drives consistently collapsed the defense, allowing him to generate offense despite missing several looks. He supplemented his rim pressure with timely hustle plays that kept offensive sequences alive. His ability to draw contact and force defensive rotations was the engine for his highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 60.6%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 26.6m -12.4
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Daniel Gafford 21.5m
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Dominated the interior with elite rim protection and high-percentage finishing around the basket. His relentless activity on the glass generated crucial extra possessions, driving a massive defensive footprint. Continuing a trend of hyper-efficient converting, he anchored the paint flawlessly by sealing his man early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -46.8
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.9
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 21.5m -10.0
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.1

Capitalized on his minutes by executing perfectly in the pick-and-roll, breaking out of a recent offensive slump. Active screening and hard rolls to the rim created gravity that opened up the floor for the guards. Solid positional defense and a pattern of winning 50/50 balls ensured his minutes were a net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.4%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 26.4m -12.4
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Caleb Martin 25.9m
9
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Elite effort metrics and constant motion were entirely undone by stagnant offensive execution and missed perimeter looks. He failed to stretch the floor, allowing defenders to pack the paint during his shifts. Despite flying around for loose balls, his inability to connect on spot-up chances proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/8 (37.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -59.7
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +6.1
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 25.9m -12.1
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Smothering point-of-attack defense nearly salvaged a quiet offensive performance. He struggled to find his rhythm as a playmaker, often deferring rather than attacking gaps in the defense. A pattern of offensive passivity kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral despite his defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +7.7
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 21.4m -10.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

Utterly invisible on the offensive end, failing to register a single point while missing his few attempts. His inability to create separation or impact the spacing made the offense play four-on-five. Minor contributions on the glass couldn't mask how much his offensive zeroes hurt the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 14.5m -6.8
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Johnson 13.2m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Floated through his brief minutes without leaving any tangible imprint on the game. A complete lack of aggression on both ends resulted in zero hustle contributions and negative defensive value. He was essentially a non-factor, allowing the opposition to dictate the flow during his stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -71.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 13.2m -6.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1