GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 27.2m
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.2

Settled for highly contested, off-the-dribble jumpers early in the shot clock, tanking the team's offensive efficiency. The poor shot selection broke his recent streak of efficient scoring and allowed the defense to easily reset. While he flashed some secondary playmaking, the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged his overall value into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +52.5
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 27.2m -14.1
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 24.1m
17
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.9

Utterly dominated the interior with flawless rim-running and suffocating drop coverage that completely erased opponent drives. His flawless finishing around the basket punished every defensive rotation, doubling his usual scoring output. He controlled the glass with sheer physicality, ending defensive possessions and triggering fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 84.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +55.6
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.5
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 24.1m -12.5
Impact +19.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 24.0m
9
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.4

A passive offensive approach saw him float on the perimeter rather than utilizing his physical advantages in the paint. Bricked outside looks and a lack of downhill aggression resulted in a significant scoring drop-off from his recent averages. He provided decent weak-side rim protection, but the lack of scoring punch left the offense stagnant during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +57.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 24.0m -12.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 23.3m
20
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.9

Broke out of a recent shooting slump by burying deep pull-up threes that completely warped the opposing defensive shell. His audacious transition passing created high-value looks before the defense could even match up. The constant threat of his limitless range opened up back-door cuts and easy finishes for his frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +62.7
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 23.3m -12.0
Impact +11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kon Knueppel 20.6m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Lethal perimeter shooting stretched the opposing defense past its breaking point, opening up driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications with quick-trigger releases from deep. A few missed rotations on the other end kept his overall impact from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +61.6
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 20.6m -10.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Anchored the second unit with disciplined verticality at the rim, deterring multiple drives without committing fouls. His offensive role was strictly limited to finishing spoon-fed lob passes, which he executed perfectly. A lack of mobility on perimeter switches prevented him from making a larger overall impact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +52.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.3
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 22.1m -11.4
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Sion James 21.1m
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Over-aggressiveness on the defensive end led to poor gambles, compromising the team's shell and surrendering easy driving lanes. Despite a slight uptick in his usually dismal scoring output, his erratic decision-making in transition squandered potential advantages. The negative swing in momentum during his minutes outweighed his occasional hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 21.1m -10.9
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Coby White 18.4m
27
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.4

An absolute offensive masterclass defined by lethal off-ball movement and blistering catch-and-shoot efficiency. He punished every defensive lapse, exploding past his usual scoring averages to single-handedly break the game open. His decisive shot-making completely demoralized the opposing perimeter defenders.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.4%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +74.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +25.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 18.4m -9.5
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 17.0m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Injected a massive dose of energy into the lineup with relentless point-of-attack defense and timely floor burns. He broke out of a severe scoring drought by confidently stepping into open corner looks when the defense collapsed. His willingness to do the dirty work perfectly complemented the high-usage stars around him.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +45.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 17.0m -8.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to punish defensive sagging and clogging the spacing for primary creators. His inability to generate any scoring threat allowed opponents to freely double-team the ball-handlers. While he communicated well defensively, his offensive zero severely handicapped the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg +23.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 16.8m -8.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.1

Maximized a brief stint on the floor by crashing the glass with reckless abandon and securing crucial extra possessions. He capitalized on defensive inattention with decisive, quick-trigger scoring moves. His high-motor activity completely shifted the energy of the game during a pivotal second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 10.3m -5.4
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 7.5m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Flashed his usual microwave scoring ability in a highly truncated shift, hitting tough pull-ups against tight coverage. However, his defensive lapses at the point of attack gave back almost everything he generated offensively. The short leash prevented him from finding a consistent rhythm on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 7.5m -3.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

Operated as a flawless defensive connector during a short stint, seamlessly switching across multiple positions to blow up pick-and-rolls. His quick processing speed on offense kept the ball moving, even if he didn't look for his own shot. The brief burst of high-IQ basketball stabilized the second unit perfectly.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 7.5m -3.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Devin Carter 34.1m
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Relentless energy on loose balls and transition sprints generated a massive hustle rating that anchored his positive impact. He aggressively hunted his shot to break out of a recent slump, punishing drop coverage with decisive pull-ups. That constant downhill pressure warped the opposing defense and created secondary scoring windows.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -55.0
+/- -36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +9.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 34.1m -17.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Malik Monk 29.9m
7
pts
3
reb
14
ast
Impact
-3.7

Elite playmaking vision was entirely undone by a disastrous shooting night where he repeatedly forced wild attempts at the rim. The sheer volume of bricked floaters and contested layups acted as live-ball turnovers, fueling opponent fast breaks. While he orchestrated the offense well, his refusal to stop shooting through the slump severely damaged the team's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -60.9
+/- -39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 29.9m -15.6
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 29.5m
16
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A high volume of missed interior bunnies dragged down what was otherwise a highly active two-way performance. He generated excellent defensive metrics by walling off the paint, but gave that value right back with rushed flip shots in traffic. The stark drop in finishing efficiency snapped a hot streak and stalled out several crucial offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -70.6
+/- -42
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 29.5m -15.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 28.8m
7
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.9

Impact plummeted due to forced isolation attempts that resulted in clanked jumpers and disrupted offensive flow. The drastic drop in scoring volume from his usual baseline exposed his lack of off-ball gravity. A few decent defensive rotations couldn't salvage a night defined by stalled half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 30.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 28.8m -14.8
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Despite offering solid rotational rim protection that boosted his defensive metrics, his offensive passivity tanked his overall value. Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks rather than attacking closeouts led to empty trips down the floor. His inability to punish mismatches allowed the defense to ignore him completely.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 27.7m -14.3
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
22
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Maintained his recent scoring tear by attacking the rim with violent intentions and securing extra possessions through sheer effort. His ability to hit contested perimeter shots bailed out several late-clock situations, keeping the offense afloat. Active hands in the passing lanes translated directly into transition scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +6.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 36.2m -18.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.8

Defensive limitations were ruthlessly exploited in space, bleeding points that erased his solid spot-up shooting contributions. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, leading to easy blow-bys and collapsed defensive shells. His floor-spacing gravity wasn't enough to offset the constant defensive breakdowns he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 29.8m -15.3
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggled to finish through contact around the basket, wasting multiple second-chance opportunities generated by his own offensive rebounding. The sheer number of blown layups neutralized the value of his excellent work on the glass. He anchored the paint well enough, but his heavy feet on perimeter switches gave up crucial driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 23.9m -12.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3