GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S LaMelo Ball 37.2m
20
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.1

An abysmal shooting performance completely derailed the offensive rhythm, as he continually hijacked possessions with ill-advised, deep pull-ups. The sheer volume of wasted possessions allowed the defense to set up easily and counterattack. A destructive pattern of forcing early-clock, contested threes was the defining, negative feature of his night.

Shooting
FG 7/26 (26.9%)
3PT 5/18 (27.8%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 37.2m -18.5
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 36.2m
11
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.3

Brutal shot selection cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the clock. The sheer volume of clanking from the perimeter fueled long rebounds and easy transition opportunities for the opponent. A disastrous pattern of forcing heavily contested threes was simply too costly to overcome, despite his admirable defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 36.2m -18.0
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 34.3m
29
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

High-level shot-making from beyond the arc punished drop coverages and kept the spacing pristine. He was lethal coming off pin-downs, forcing the defense into impossible closeout situations. A pattern of lethal shot-making off movement dictated the defense, though occasional lapses in off-ball awareness prevented his impact score from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 34.3m -17.1
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 29.9m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

A relatively quiet night where his offensive assertiveness waned, leading to a stagnant half-court attack. He settled for perimeter looks rather than attacking the rim, neutralizing his typical athletic advantages. A passive stretch in the second half where he floated on the perimeter kept his overall impact hovering near neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 29.9m -14.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moussa Diabaté 24.7m
10
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

Relentless work on the offensive glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that kept the offense humming. He consistently beat his man to the spot, utilizing his length to alter shots and secure contested boards. A dominant second-quarter stint of offensive rebounding provided a massive stabilizing force for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 24.7m -12.2
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive sluggishness was the main culprit here, as he was repeatedly beaten off the dribble by quicker forwards. He failed to offer secondary rim protection, allowing easy layups when the point-of-attack defense broke down. Being repeatedly targeted in isolation exposed his lack of lateral quickness and drove his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 25.1m -12.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Coby White 18.7m
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.6

Completely flipped the game's momentum with aggressive, decisive drives that shattered the defensive shell. He paired his scoring punch with relentless point-of-attack pressure, blowing up dribble hand-offs and forcing rushed decisions. A dominant fourth-quarter stretch of downhill attacking was the catalyst for the team's most successful runs.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -33.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 18.7m -9.2
Impact +13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Executed his role perfectly by setting bone-crushing screens and rolling hard to the rim. He didn't demand touches but created immense gravity inside, opening up driving lanes for the guards. A series of perfectly timed drop-coverage contests yielded a steady, positive impact during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +21.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 17.5m -8.8
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Green 10.2m
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Struggled to find any offensive rhythm, missing open spot-up looks that cramped the floor spacing. He was slightly out of position on closeouts, allowing straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. A pattern of bricking wide-open corner looks stalled the offense and resulted in a quick hook.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 10.2m -5.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 6.2m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Missed all of his perimeter attempts but managed to salvage his stint through high-IQ connective passing. He kept the ball moving and avoided costly mistakes, maintaining the offensive flow despite his own shooting woes. A pattern of making the extra pass kept his overall performance perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 6.2m -3.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 43.0m
26
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.8

Relentless downhill attacking collapsed the defense and created high-quality looks for teammates. He paired his offensive initiation with surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense, fighting through screens to bother ball-handlers. A crucial third-quarter stretch of aggressive rim pressure kept the offense afloat during critical moments.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.0m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.6
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 43.0m -21.5
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Paul George 36.4m
26
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.7

Elite two-way engagement drove a massive positive impact, specifically anchored by suffocating perimeter defense that disrupted Charlotte's sets. He paired high-volume shot-making with active hands in the passing lanes, generating transition opportunities through sheer hustle. A dominant third-quarter stretch of defensive stops and efficient perimeter execution created a massive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +13.2
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 36.4m -18.1
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
S Joel Embiid 35.8m
29
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.6

Dominant interior positioning forced the defense to collapse, opening up the floor even when his own jumpers didn't fall at an elite clip. He controlled the glass and altered shots around the rim, providing a steady defensive anchor against Charlotte's frontcourt. The sheer gravity of his post-ups dictated the game's tempo, masking a slightly inefficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 58.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 35.8m -17.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 32.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 30.7m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Empty offensive production failed to translate into winning basketball due to a complete lack of defensive impact. He was repeatedly targeted on the perimeter by quicker guards, giving back nearly everything he generated on the scoring end. A pattern of getting blown by at the point of attack kept his overall net rating firmly in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense 0.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 30.7m -15.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 15.4m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

A lack of defensive resistance dragged down his overall rating despite converting his lone opportunity. A pattern of blown pick-and-roll coverages allowed opponents to score too easily at the rim during his rotation minutes. The inability to generate meaningful stops or secure contested boards negated any offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -50.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.6
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 15.4m -7.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.7

Passive offensive involvement and an inability to generate secondary playmaking severely limited his usefulness. He blended into the background during half-court sets, failing to punish closeouts or create advantages off the bounce. A pattern of passing up open catch-and-shoot opportunities resulted in a significant net negative during his floor time.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +20.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 28.5m -14.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Despite active hands and good hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to disjointed offensive flow. He forced a few contested looks early in the shot clock, stalling the team's momentum during his shifts. A pattern of tunnel vision on drives ultimately hindered his effectiveness and dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 27.7m -13.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Rushed a perimeter jumper and failed to make an imprint on the defensive end during his brief run. He struggled to find the rhythm of the game, looking slightly out of sync with the second unit's spacing. A heavily contested, early-clock heave epitomized his out-of-sync stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +86.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 8.0m -4.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Made his presence felt on the glass immediately, securing a pair of tough rebounds in heavy traffic. He provided a sturdy physical deterrent in the paint, even without attempting a high-percentage shot. A pair of physical box-outs in heavy traffic defined his brief but effective interior stabilization.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 6.3m -3.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Adem Bona 5.9m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Provided a quick burst of energy but was outmatched physically during his short rotation. He managed to convert his lone look around the basket, yet struggled to establish rebounding position against bigger bodies. Getting sealed out of the paint on consecutive possessions showed he was not quite ready for the physicality of the matchup.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 5.9m -3.0
Impact -0.6
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
-1.4

Barely saw the floor, logging just over two minutes of action. His brief stint was entirely uneventful, failing to register a single counting stat. A blown rotation in transition defined his fleeting appearance and resulted in a slight negative grade.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 2.3m -1.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0