GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 37.0m
26
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.0

Absolute flamethrower spacing from beyond the arc broke the opposing defensive scheme wide open. He capitalized on every defensive lapse, punishing late closeouts with a barrage of highly efficient perimeter strikes. His off-ball gravity alone created driving lanes for the entire roster, cementing a dominant overall impact.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +23.6
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.0
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 37.0m -18.3
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 35.6m
22
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

Dynamic shot creation and improved efficiency from deep snapped a recent cold streak and kept the offense humming. He manipulated the pick-and-roll masterfully, forcing the defense to choose between his pull-up jumper and lob passes. A few careless reads in traffic kept his rating from reaching elite territory, but the offensive engine ran smoothly under his command.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 35.6m -17.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 32.7m
21
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Excellent shot-making was nearly negated by defensive lapses and a lack of secondary playmaking. He hunted his offense efficiently, draining tough contested jumpers, but gave much of it back by losing his man on backdoor cuts. The scoring volume was impressive, yet his overall footprint on the game remained surprisingly neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 32.7m -16.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Miles Bridges 31.6m
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Relentless rim pressure salvaged a performance where his outside shot was completely broken. By abandoning the three-point line and attacking the basket with physicality, he generated enough interior gravity to keep his impact positive. Active rebounding and transition hustle further offset the perimeter inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 31.6m -15.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 30.3m
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.5

Defensive anchoring and high-motor hustle plays drove a massive positive rating despite him being a total non-factor offensively. He blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions and dominated the dirty work in the paint. The team thrived during his minutes simply because he completely neutralized the opponent's interior scoring.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +11.7
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 30.3m -15.0
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
Coby White 23.4m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Forced pull-ups from the perimeter and defensive matador moments dragged his impact into the red. He settled for several contested jumpers early in the clock, short-circuiting offensive momentum. The scoring volume was essentially empty calories given how often he was blown by on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 23.4m -11.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Drop-coverage vulnerabilities against quick guards neutralized his normally reliable rim protection. He finished his limited touches efficiently but struggled to navigate screens in space. The opposition relentlessly targeted him in the pick-and-roll, erasing any value he provided on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 17.7m -8.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Minimal offensive involvement and a failure to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint during his shifts. He provided sturdy post defense, but his hesitation to let it fly from the perimeter bogged down the team's spacing. The lack of two-way aggression ultimately resulted in a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 15.0m -7.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Sion James 14.4m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

An offensive zero whose inability to convert even basic looks severely handicapped the second unit. He was actively ignored by the defense, which completely ruined the spacing for the primary ball-handlers. While he tried to compensate with active hands on defense, the offensive dead weight was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 14.4m -7.3
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Green 2.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Barely saw the floor before being yanked due to immediate defensive breakdowns. He failed to register a single positive statistical contribution during a fleeting appearance. The coaching staff clearly didn't trust his matchup containment.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +56.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 2.3m -1.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 39.8m
26
pts
2
reb
13
ast
Impact
+3.7

High-volume playmaking salvaged a rough perimeter shooting night where his outside touch completely abandoned him. He compensated for the missed triples by relentlessly attacking the paint and collapsing the defense to feed open shooters. The sheer burden of initiating every offensive set kept his overall impact positive despite the inefficient scoring.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +4.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 39.8m -19.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Josh Hart 39.4m
16
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.6

Defensive rebounding and relentless transition pushes drove a massive positive rating. He completely dictated the game's tempo by turning 50/50 balls into immediate fast-break opportunities. Anchoring the perimeter defense while crashing the glass created a massive possession advantage.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.4m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +9.2
Defense +13.9
Raw total +36.1
Avg player in 39.4m -19.5
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 39.1m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite floor-spacing and perimeter containment kept his overall impact firmly in the green. Generating high-quality looks from deep fueled a highly efficient offensive outing that punished defensive rotations. His active hands in the passing lanes provided a steady stream of hustle value.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +6.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 39.1m -19.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mikal Bridges 32.0m
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A lack of defensive playmaking dragged his net rating slightly below neutral despite decent offensive efficiency. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, neutralizing the value he added through secondary scoring. While his off-ball movement generated solid looks, perimeter breakdowns ultimately tipped the scales.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +6.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 32.0m -15.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Reduced floor time capped his overall influence, though he maintained excellent shot selection by taking what the defense gave him. Rather than forcing isolation plays, he operated smoothly within the flow of the offense. His interior presence was solid but lacked the dominant rebounding edge usually seen during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 22.0m -10.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Elite rim protection and paint deterrence anchored the defense, driving a strong positive rating despite minimal offensive usage. He embraced a pure garbage-man role, setting bruising screens and altering shots at the basket. The lack of scoring volume was irrelevant given how completely he shut down the opponent's interior attack.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.5
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 26.2m -13.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Quick-trigger scoring bursts against the second unit provided a necessary offensive spark. He minimized his usual erratic shot selection, opting for high-percentage drives that kept the offense humming. However, a tendency to get lost on defensive rotations prevented his rating from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +4.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 18.1m -9.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Poor shot selection and an inability to find an offensive rhythm tanked his brief stint on the floor. He forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, leading to empty possessions that allowed the opposition to build momentum. A lack of secondary hustle plays meant he offered no alternative value when the shots weren't falling.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 12.7m -6.3
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Complete offensive invisibility during his rotational minutes led to a negative stint. He operated purely as a passive ball-mover, failing to pressure the rim or create advantages for his teammates. The defense completely ignored him, bogging down the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -118.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 5.8m -2.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.6

A disastrous five-minute stint was defined by defensive miscommunications and empty offensive trips. He failed to generate his trademark backcourt pressure, allowing the opposing guards to easily initiate their sets. Missing his only attempts while offering zero playmaking quickly forced him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -38.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -6.1
Avg player in 5.1m -2.5
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2