GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S LaMelo Ball 33.1m
30
pts
6
reb
13
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite playmaking and high-volume scoring creation drove a strong positive impact, breaking him out of a recent shooting slump. While he forced a few too many deep threes, his ability to orchestrate the offense and generate clean looks for teammates was undeniable. The sheer offensive gravity he provided kept the team in control.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.0%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 33.1m -17.7
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Miles Bridges 31.4m
14
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Stifling defense and relentless work on the glass anchored his highly positive impact. He controlled the paint defensively, altering shots and securing extra possessions. This elite defensive presence perfectly complemented an efficient, low-maintenance offensive output.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +37.7
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +12.0
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 31.4m -16.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 31.1m
8
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.9

Dominated the interior with exceptional rebounding and rim protection. His defensive verticality and hustle generated numerous stops, while he remained highly efficient with his limited offensive touches. A quintessential glue-guy performance that heavily influenced the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.8
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 31.1m -16.7
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 26.4m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

A high volume of missed two-point attempts dragged down an otherwise solid perimeter shooting night. He struggled to finish through contact, wasting possessions when chased off the three-point line. The resulting offensive inefficiency outweighed his scoring totals.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +47.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 26.4m -14.2
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kon Knueppel 23.6m
22
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.6

A masterclass in offensive efficiency and shot creation drove a massive positive score. He consistently found soft spots in the defense, pairing high-level scoring with solid defensive positioning. His ability to punish mismatches inside the arc defined a dominant performance.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 23.6m -12.6
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Coby White 20.4m
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Aggressive rim pressure and efficient interior scoring fueled a highly productive offensive outing. He consistently broke down the primary point of attack, generating high-quality looks and capitalizing on defensive breakdowns. This relentless offensive engine easily overshadowed a few forced perimeter shots.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 20.4m -10.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.8

Perfect shooting efficiency wasn't enough to overcome a general lack of overall involvement. He floated on the perimeter too often, failing to generate enough volume or defensive disruption to move the needle. A low-impact, low-mistake performance that ultimately settled just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 18.9m -10.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 17.9m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Offensive passivity and an inability to impact the game's pace resulted in a heavily negative rating. He struggled to find a rhythm or assert himself on either end of the floor. The lack of tangible contributions allowed the opposition to capitalize during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -22.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 17.9m -9.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Exceptional rim protection and efficient finishing in the pick-and-roll maximized his minutes. He anchored the defense during his shifts, deterring drives and securing the paint. This highly specialized, mistake-free role playing resulted in a strong positive score.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 14.4m -7.8
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 14.4m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Complete offensive invisibility doomed his impact score despite decent hustle metrics. He failed to apply any pressure on the defense, allowing his man to roam and double-team others. The lack of scoring threat rendered his defensive contributions moot.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 14.4m -7.6
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 3.5m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Managed to post a positive impact in very limited action through solid defensive positioning. He avoided negative plays and kept the ball moving during his brief stint. A steady, uneventful shift that slightly benefited the team.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 3.5m -2.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Instant offense and perfect execution defined a highly impactful micro-shift. He capitalized immediately on his touches, providing a sudden scoring burst without giving anything back on defense. Maximized his brief run to perfection.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Logged empty minutes without registering a single measurable statistic. His negative score reflects being on the wrong end of a brief opponent run while providing zero resistance. A completely invisible stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +60.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Tyler Herro 30.9m
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.6

Strong defensive positioning and timely rotations surprisingly anchored his positive impact. He balanced a moderate shooting volume with excellent defensive execution, proving effective on both ends. This two-way stability allowed him to stay in the green despite not dominating the ball offensively.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.8%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +6.9
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 30.9m -16.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Norman Powell 30.6m
17
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

A barrage of missed mid-range and perimeter jumpers dragged down his overall impact despite an aggressive approach. The sheer volume of empty possessions negated his solid hustle metrics and scoring output. His inability to find a shooting rhythm ultimately capped his value as a primary option.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 30.6m -16.4
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kel'el Ware 27.9m
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Forcing the issue from beyond the arc proved costly, as a barrage of missed threes severely damaged his offensive rating. Defensive activity and solid hustle metrics kept him engaged, but the poor shot selection from deep was too much to overcome. Abandoning his interior game for perimeter looks directly drove the negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 27.9m -14.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 27.7m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.4

Defensive liabilities completely washed away an otherwise efficient offensive outing. He bled value on the defensive end, allowing matchups to exploit him too easily. While he maintained his recent streak of efficient shooting, the defensive cratering resulted in a heavily negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense -2.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 27.7m -14.8
Impact -10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Davion Mitchell 26.4m
4
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.0

Tremendous hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance marred by offensive stagnation and missed perimeter looks. He failed to generate meaningful scoring gravity, allowing defenders to sag off and disrupt the team's spacing. The inability to convert open shots ultimately tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 26.4m -14.2
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

A heavy reliance on the three-point shot backfired, as a slew of missed triples dragged down his offensive efficiency. While he exceeded his recent scoring averages, the volume of wasted possessions outweighed the raw production. Poor shot selection from deep was the primary culprit for his negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 23.5m -12.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.1

Elite hustle and disruptive defensive play fueled a massive positive impact. He broke out of a recent scoring slump by pairing aggressive two-way energy with timely perimeter shot-making. His ability to generate extra possessions while locking down his assignments defined this stellar outing.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.4
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 20.1m -10.8
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.1

Extreme passivity on offense limited his ability to positively influence the game. Despite converting the few looks he took, his reluctance to attack the rim or create his own shot left value on the table. A disappearing act in the scoring column ultimately resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 19.9m -10.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

Inefficient finishing inside the arc prevented him from making a positive mark. He provided decent hustle, but defensive lapses and missed scoring opportunities kept him hovering just below neutral. An inability to capitalize on offensive sets limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 14.9m -7.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 8.0m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.1

Maximized a brief stint on the floor by executing efficiently within the flow of the offense. He avoided negative plays and capitalized on his limited touches to provide a quick spark. This low-mistake, high-efficiency cameo was enough to post a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -51.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 8.0m -4.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

A completely empty offensive shift severely damaged his per-minute impact. He failed to register any positive offensive contributions, missing his only looks and looking out of sync. The lack of production in limited minutes quickly tanked his overall score.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Defensive vulnerabilities during a short stint on the floor drove his negative rating. He offered virtually no resistance or hustle stats to offset the defensive bleeding. A quiet offensive showing couldn't mask the issues on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -34.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 3.9m -2.0
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Essentially a ghost during his brief time on the court, failing to record a single meaningful statistic. The negative impact stems entirely from being on the floor during an opponent run without contributing to stop it. He provided zero measurable value in his limited run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.4m -1.3
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0