GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 31.9m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Brick after brick from beyond the arc severely damaged his overall impact, completely offsetting his solid hustle metric. His inability to punish defenders for going under screens stalled the half-court offense for extended stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 31.9m -14.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Miller 31.9m
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Settling for heavily contested perimeter isolation plays cratered his efficiency and drove a negative net rating. A glaring lack of off-ball movement made him too easy to guard during crucial second-half possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -28.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +0.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 31.9m -14.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 29.1m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Costly defensive lapses in transition ultimately dragged a highly efficient shooting performance into the red. While he bullied smaller matchups in the post, his slow recovery times allowed too many easy counter-attacks.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 29.1m -13.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S LaMelo Ball 26.4m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Errant shot selection from deep sabotaged his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced early-clock triples against set defenses. This high-volume inefficiency negated the positive momentum he generated through active passing lane deflections.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -32.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 26.4m -12.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moussa Diabaté 24.8m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Failing to anchor the paint defensively resulted in a flat defensive rating and a steep negative overall score. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in drop coverage, exposing his lack of rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense 0.0
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 24.8m -11.6
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 22.4m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

While his perimeter stroke was dialed in, a lack of secondary effort plays kept his net impact slightly submerged. Getting caught ball-watching on several defensive rebounding sequences surrendered costly second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 22.4m -10.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Coby White 19.8m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Forcing drives into heavy traffic resulted in low-quality attempts that tanked his overall rating. His inability to find a rhythm against aggressive point-of-attack pressure stalled the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +36.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.8m -9.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Josh Green 18.0m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

Complete invisibility on the offensive end led to a disastrous total impact rating. Passing up open corner looks crippled the team's floor spacing, allowing defenders to freely pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 18.0m -8.4
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Relentless screen-setting and physical box-outs produced a stellar hustle score that defined his highly effective shift. He embraced the dirty work inside, creating vital separation for the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.3%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 13.3m -6.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.1

Lethal offensive execution in a short burst skyrocketed his impact score to an elite level. Punishing defensive miscommunications with decisive backdoor cuts perfectly showcased his high basketball IQ.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 88.7%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 10.9m -5.0
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 3.9m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A brief cameo yielded a slightly negative score due to a complete absence of defensive resistance. He failed to navigate through off-ball screens, allowing his assignment free reign on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.9m -1.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Floating aimlessly through a brief rotation stint resulted in empty metrics across the board. Providing zero weak-side help defense ensured his net impact stayed firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.9m -1.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Clanking his only offensive look dragged down his rating despite showing solid defensive fundamentals. A strong vertical contest at the rim highlighted his brief but physically demanding shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 3.9m -1.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
28
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.0

Relentless downhill attacking broke down the opposing defense, driving a stellar box score contribution. His decisive shot creation during non-star minutes kept the offense humming and secured a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.6
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 37.2m -17.5
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jordan Walsh 33.7m
3
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Despite a stellar defensive rating driven by relentless perimeter containment, his overall impact slipped into the red due to brutal shot selection. Clanking every perimeter attempt neutralized the value of his high-energy closeouts.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.2%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.9
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 33.7m -15.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 33.6m
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Extreme passivity on the offensive end resulted in a severe negative net impact despite highly efficient shooting. Failing to hunt his shot against favorable defensive rotations severely limited the floor-spacing value he typically provides.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 33.6m -15.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jayson Tatum 30.8m
32
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.6

An overwhelming offensive barrage fueled a massive positive box score metric, completely dictating the tempo of the game. His ability to consistently punish mismatches on the perimeter masked a relatively quiet night in the hustle and defensive categories.

Shooting
FG 12/23 (52.2%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +25.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 30.8m -14.4
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Neemias Queta 28.8m
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.7

Elite rim-running and continuous interior activity generated a robust hustle score to anchor his highly positive night. He established deep post position early and often, converting high-percentage looks that heavily inflated his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 28.8m -13.4
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.8

A heavy diet of contested perimeter jumpers dragged his net impact into negative territory despite a notable scoring surge. While the volume was there, the poor shot quality surrendered too many long rebounds that ignited opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 28.4m -13.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.9

Flawless execution in a short stint maximized his value, yielding an impressive total impact. Capitalizing immediately on backdoor cuts showcased a sharp offensive awareness that perfectly complemented the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +40.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 14.3m -6.6
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Luka Garza 13.4m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

A complete lack of offensive aggression tanked his overall score, as he failed to leverage his size in the paint. Being effectively neutralized by frontcourt double-teams rendered him a non-factor on a night where he usually dominates the glass.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 13.4m -6.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Staying strictly within his role allowed him to post a modest but positive net rating. He avoided costly mistakes and maintained proper spacing during his rotation, providing stable filler minutes without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -48.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 13.0m -6.2
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Brief garbage-time minutes offered virtually no opportunity to influence the game positively. He was caught out of position on a late defensive rotation, which slightly dinged his otherwise negligible metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 2.4m -1.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Max Shulga 2.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Forcing an ill-advised jumper during a fleeting appearance resulted in a slightly negative net score. However, a quick closeout on the perimeter salvaged a decent defensive rating for the short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 2.4m -1.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Drawing a quick foul to get to the line was the sole driver of his positive rating in just over a minute of action. He executed his screening duties effectively during a single late-game possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense +1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Tonje 1.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Active hands and immediate hustle plays generated an outsized impact score in a microscopic window of playing time. Securing a crucial loose ball right after checking in highlighted his readiness off the bench.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0