GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Moussa Diabaté 32.8m
11
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.9

Absolute dominance on the interior and elite defensive anchoring generated a massive positive impact. He controlled the paint on both ends, altering shots at the rim and securing crucial contested rebounds. Continuing a streak of hyper-efficient finishing, he punished the defense for leaving him open on rolls to the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +11.8
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 32.8m -16.7
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Brandon Miller 30.3m
22
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Lethal perimeter shot-making carried his strong offensive rating, punishing defenders who went under screens. He maintained his recent streak of elite efficiency by hunting high-quality looks from deep. While his defensive impact was modest, his scoring gravity warped the opponent's entire game plan.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +27.6
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 30.3m -15.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 28.7m
29
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.8

An explosive barrage from beyond the arc and disruptive defensive instincts fueled a dominant overall rating. He broke out of a recent efficiency slump by confidently stepping into transition threes that demoralized the defense. His ability to generate steals and immediately convert them into fast-break points broke the game wide open.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 7/14 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 34.3%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 28.7m -14.6
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 26.5m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Bullied his way to high-percentage looks inside the arc, driving a highly efficient offensive showing. He relentlessly attacked mismatches in the post, refusing to settle for outside jumpers. Active rebounding and solid defensive positioning rounded out a steady, positive performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 26.5m -13.5
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kon Knueppel 21.4m
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.3

Tremendous hustle metrics were ultimately undone by a cold shooting night from beyond the arc. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer effort but squandered them with rushed perimeter attempts. A stark drop-off from his recent scoring tear limited his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.8%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 21.4m -10.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 21.5m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Timely perimeter shooting and solid defensive positioning allowed him to break even in the impact column. He shook off a recent string of poor shooting performances by confidently knocking down spot-up looks from the corner. His ability to stay in front of his man without fouling provided a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 21.5m -10.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 20.1m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Despite a slight uptick in scoring compared to recent outings, poor finishing on drives kept his net impact in the negative. He struggled to convert through contact, wasting valuable half-court possessions. Decent defensive metrics were not enough to offset the offensive dead weight.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +32.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 20.1m -10.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Coby White 19.2m
12
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.5

Inefficient shot selection and forced isolation plays tanked his overall value despite his playmaking efforts. He repeatedly drove into heavy traffic, resulting in wild attempts that sparked opponent fast breaks. The lack of scoring punch marked a significant drop-off from his usual offensive standard.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 38.3%
Net Rtg +34.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 19.2m -9.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Low usage and an inability to assert himself offensively resulted in a slightly negative overall score. He deferred too often on the perimeter, allowing the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for teammates. While he hit the few shots he took, his lack of aggression rendered him largely invisible during key stretches.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 18.6m -9.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite finishing around the basket and high-level hustle metrics drove a highly productive stint off the bench. He capitalized on dump-off passes, maintaining his season-long trend of hyper-efficient interior scoring. His constant motion in the dunker spot forced the defense into impossible rotation choices.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 15.2m -7.8
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo that yielded negligible statistical impact. He spent his few minutes executing basic spacing assignments without registering a single shot attempt. The minimal court time prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 2.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A disastrously short stint was marred by forced shots and empty possessions. He tried to manufacture instant offense off the bench but instead derailed the team's momentum with ill-advised jumpers. The quick hook from the coaching staff reflected his inability to fit into the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 2.9m -1.4
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Javon Small 28.8m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Scoring volume surged past his recent averages, but hidden negative plays like defensive lapses or transition breakdowns dragged his net rating into the red. He found great success attacking drop coverage in the pick-and-roll. Unfortunately, giving up easy lanes on the other end completely erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 28.8m -14.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Defensive versatility and active hands on the glass kept him in the positive despite a noticeable dip in his recent shooting efficiency. He struggled to find his rhythm against physical closeouts, snapping a hot streak of highly efficient scoring nights. Even so, his willingness to do the dirty work on the boards salvaged his floor time.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 27.3m -13.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 24.6m
9
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.1

An abysmal shooting night from the perimeter torpedoed his overall value despite an uptick in scoring volume. Clanking multiple open looks from deep negated his otherwise steady defensive positioning. His shot selection leaned heavily on contested jumpers, dragging down the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -32.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 24.6m -12.5
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S GG Jackson 23.6m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.4

High-volume interior finishing drove a strong offensive rating, though a complete blank from beyond the arc capped his ceiling. He consistently bullied his primary defender in the paint to generate high-percentage looks. The lack of defensive resistance kept his overall impact grounded despite the scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.1
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 23.6m -11.9
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.4

Timely perimeter shot-making and active defensive rotations helped him post a modest positive impact. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by hunting catch-and-shoot opportunities rather than forcing off-the-dribble looks. Strong hustle plays in the second half further cemented his value as a stabilizing rotation piece.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -42.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 21.9m -11.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Burton 28.7m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Empty offensive possessions and missed assignments in the half-court dragged his overall rating down. While he managed to hit a couple of outside shots, his inability to finish through contact in the paint wasted valuable trips. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, frequently forcing teammates into unfavorable rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 28.7m -14.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 26.1m
0
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.6

Putting up a complete goose egg from the floor devastated his offensive impact and sank his overall score. He forced several contested looks late in the shot clock, killing the team's momentum during a crucial second-half stretch. Solid defensive metrics were completely overshadowed by his inability to generate any scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 26.1m -13.3
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+12.0

Elite defensive disruption and hyper-efficient perimeter shooting fueled a massive spike in his overall impact. He completely shut down his primary assignment on the wing, turning deflections into transition opportunities. This two-way dominance marked a sharp, welcome turnaround from his recent offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +9.4
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 25.0m -12.7
Impact +12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-12.8

A severe lack of offensive rhythm and poor finishing at the rim resulted in a cratered net rating. He looked hesitant attacking the basket, settling for low-quality attempts that fueled opponent fast breaks. His playmaking could not compensate for the sheer volume of dead-end possessions he orchestrated.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 22.1m -11.3
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Taj Gibson 12.0m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Veteran savvy and highly efficient shot selection maximized his brief time on the floor. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find easy looks around the basket. His steady positioning on both ends provided a reliable anchor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0