GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 28.1m
25
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.8

Absolute dominance in shot creation and off-ball hustle fueled a massive positive rating. Torching defenders with a lethal mix of step-back jumpers and decisive drives dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +21.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 28.1m -14.6
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 25.1m
17
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Lethal perimeter spacing was effectively canceled out by defensive lapses on the wing. While his gravity opened up driving lanes for others, late closeouts and missed rotations allowed the opponent to answer right back.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.6
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 25.1m -13.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 24.5m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Offensive invisibility and a failure to convert easy dump-offs ruined an otherwise solid defensive shift. Snapping a long streak of high-efficiency games, his inability to punish switches clogged the paint for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 24.5m -12.8
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 22.9m
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

A stark drop in aggression and overall involvement led to a surprisingly negative outing. Floating on the perimeter instead of attacking the basket neutralized his usual athletic mismatch, allowing the defense to rest.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +39.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 22.9m -11.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 20.2m
20
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.4

Elite defensive anticipation paired with highly efficient offensive orchestration resulted in a masterclass performance. Jumping passing lanes to ignite the fast break showcased a two-way engagement that completely overwhelmed the opposition.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +31.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 20.2m -10.5
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
13
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.0

Perfect offensive execution as a roll man generated immense value in the half-court. Setting bone-crushing screens and finishing everything around the rim gave the guards an unstoppable safety valve.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.8%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 23.5m -12.2
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Coby White 22.8m
27
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.8

Catching fire from beyond the arc punished the defense for repeatedly going under screens. His aggressive shot-hunting broke the opponent's drop coverage and single-handedly carried the scoring load during a crucial stretch.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.7%
USG% 39.6%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 22.8m -11.8
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Sion James 21.7m
6
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.2

Off-the-charts hustle metrics and flawless shooting execution engineered a wildly impactful rotational shift. Diving for loose balls and locking down the point of attack completely shifted the momentum of the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +65.1
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +7.3
Defense +6.9
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 21.7m -11.3
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 18.0m
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Minor defensive miscommunications and a failure to capitalize on transition advantages kept his rating slightly negative. Although he knocked down a timely perimeter shot, his overall passivity allowed the opposing wings to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 18.0m -9.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.4

A complete lack of offensive involvement and poor spacing cratered the lineup's effectiveness during his minutes. Failing to register a single positive impact play, he was entirely schemed out of the game by a quicker frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense -6.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total -6.3
Avg player in 17.5m -9.1
Impact -15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Tre Mann 6.8m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

A disjointed offensive rhythm and forced isolation attempts derailed his brief time on the floor. Stagnating the ball against set defenses led to empty possessions that the opponent quickly turned into transition points.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 6.8m -3.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Clanking wide-open spot-up looks negated a fundamentally sound defensive shift. His inability to punish the defense for collapsing on the paint allowed them to heavily pack the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 6.8m -3.5
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Rushing a contested interior look defined a fleeting and largely invisible appearance. He provided a brief moment of physical post defense but ultimately didn't log enough time to alter the game's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 1.9m -0.9
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 28.4m
20
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.8

High-usage inefficiency capped his overall value, as a barrage of missed perimeter jumpers offset his otherwise robust playmaking. While he initiated the offense well, forcing contested looks against set defenses prevented him from dominating the game's flow.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 28.4m -14.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Desmond Bane 25.7m
24
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Slicing through defensive coverages with high-quality shot selection propelled his massive positive impact. His ability to consistently punish drop coverage from the perimeter opened up the floor, making him the primary engine of the offense during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 25.7m -13.4
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

A sharp drop-off in scoring volume and efficiency dragged his overall impact into the red despite solid defensive metrics. His inability to find his rhythm offensively stalled out several key possessions, forcing the team to look elsewhere for creation.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -26.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 22.4m -11.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 21.9m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Elite point-of-attack defense wasn't enough to salvage a highly erratic offensive showing. Clanking multiple forced threes and struggling to finish through contact severely hampered the team's transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 21.9m -11.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Goga Bitadze 18.9m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

A quiet but perfectly stabilized stint anchoring the interior kept his net impact slightly above water. He didn't force any action offensively, instead relying on sound positional defense and timely screens to keep the second unit organized.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 18.9m -9.9
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Noah Penda 21.4m
8
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite a massive scoring surge compared to his recent baseline, erratic shot selection dragged down his overall net score. Settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts limited the ceiling of his breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 21.4m -11.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Poor spacing and rushed attempts from beyond the arc cratered his overall effectiveness. Failing to convert on standard pick-and-pop actions allowed the opposing frontcourt to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 18.7m -9.7
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 18.7m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Tenacious ball pressure and a willingness to let it fly from deep generated a strong positive rating. Even with a few streaky misses, his disruptive defensive rotations consistently blew up the opponent's primary actions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 18.7m -9.7
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 18.4m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.9

Sustaining a hot streak of efficient finishing, his relentless rim-running and transition hustle drove a stellar impact rating. He consistently beat his man down the floor, turning defensive stops into immediate high-percentage offense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +5.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 18.4m -9.6
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jett Howard 15.8m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

High-energy off-ball movement and relentless hustle plays defined a highly efficient rotational shift. By capitalizing on limited touches and keeping the ball moving, he provided a crucial spark without demanding usage.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 15.8m -8.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Morales 12.0m
2
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.2

Bleeding value on the defensive end completely overshadowed a brief playmaking stint. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and generating easy paint touches.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +56.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.8
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 12.0m -6.2
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Solid rim protection couldn't mask an inability to secure the ball or finish through contact inside. Fumbling entry passes and missing point-blank looks derailed several half-court sets during his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 10.3m -5.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

A strictly low-mistake, gap-filling shift kept his impact marginally positive. He stayed entirely within his role, executing defensive assignments flawlessly without demanding any offensive gravity.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 7.4m -3.9
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0