GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 32.5m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

High-end scoring efficiency was nearly canceled out by unseen negative plays, leaving him with a modest +0.6 Total impact. While his perimeter shot-making stretched the defense beautifully, late defensive rotations surrendered crucial corner threes. He generated just enough hustle events to keep his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 32.5m -17.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 30.7m
17
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

Defensive liabilities (-1.8 Def) and a lack of hustle plays completely undermined a solid shooting night, resulting in a harsh -6.4 total impact. He repeatedly died on screens, forcing teammates into disadvantageous rotation scenarios. The scoring numbers look fine, but his inability to contain dribble penetration bled points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.8
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 30.7m -16.4
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 27.0m
25
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

An aggressive, highly efficient scoring outburst powered a stellar +8.5 total impact. He relentlessly attacked mismatches in the post, forcing defensive collapses that opened up the floor. Coupling this offensive surge with active, disruptive help defense (+4.8 Def) made him the most impactful wing on the court.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 27.0m -14.4
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 25.2m
15
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
+7.8

Masterful pace-pushing and elite hustle (+4.8) drove a highly positive +7.8 impact score. He manipulated the pick-and-roll brilliantly, routinely drawing two defenders to create wide-open looks for his bigs. Bouncing back from a recent shooting slump, his improved shot selection kept the offense humming efficiently.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 25.2m -13.5
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Moussa Diabaté 24.7m
4
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite rim protection and flawless shot selection compensated for a sharp drop in scoring volume. He anchored the interior defense (+5.0 Def) by consistently altering shots without fouling. By strictly taking high-percentage looks and dominating the glass, he provided immense value without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 24.7m -13.1
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Sion James 23.5m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Suffocating point-of-attack defense (+7.1 Def) was the primary engine behind his +3.7 overall impact. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow by blowing up dribble hand-offs and fighting over every screen. Breaking out of a brutal shooting slump to hit timely cuts to the basket provided an unexpected offensive bonus.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 11.7%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 23.5m -12.5
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.1

An absolute defensive masterclass (+10.4 Def) and relentless motor (+7.1 Hustle) generated a monstrous +15.1 total impact. He completely sealed off the paint, contesting everything at the rim while securing crucial extra possessions through sheer effort. Perfect offensive execution on rim-runs ensured he maximized every single touch he received.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +7.1
Defense +10.4
Raw total +27.6
Avg player in 23.3m -12.5
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 0
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.0

A perfectly neutral 0.0 impact score reflects a night where solid defensive positioning was offset by bricked jumpers. He settled for heavily contested perimeter looks, stalling out several half-court possessions. However, his physical post defense (+1.9 Def) prevented the opposition from exploiting mismatches inside.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 21.0m -11.2
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Coby White 20.3m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Aggressive downhill drives and active hands in the passing lanes (+4.3 Hustle) fueled a strong +4.0 impact rating. He consistently attacked closeouts to collapse the defense, generating high-quality looks for himself and others. Remaining engaged defensively ensured his scoring bursts directly translated to building a lead.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 20.3m -10.8
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Josh Green 6.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Total offensive invisibility dragged his short stint into the negative (-3.1 Total). While he brought good energy chasing loose balls (+2.7 Hustle), his defender completely ignored him to pack the paint. The resulting 4-on-5 spacing issues severely handicapped the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 6.9m -3.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 2.6m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

A quick bucket in transition provided a minor positive bump during his fleeting appearance. He executed his lone offensive set perfectly but didn't have time to register any defensive or hustle metrics. The stint was too brief to establish any meaningful rhythm or flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Cardio minutes at the end of the rotation resulted in a negligible -0.6 impact score. He maintained proper defensive spacing but was completely bypassed in the offensive progression. There simply wasn't enough time or involvement to move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 2.2m -1.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 35.7m
22
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-3.5

Inefficient volume shooting severely undercut his overall impact (-3.5 Total) despite solid underlying hustle metrics. He settled for heavily contested jumpers during a crucial second-half stretch rather than pressuring the rim. The resulting empty possessions allowed the opponent to dictate the transition pace, negating his decent playmaking contributions.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 35.7m -19.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Green 34.3m
25
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.3

High-level two-way engagement drove a massive +10.3 overall impact. He paired efficient shot creation with superb defensive positioning (+6.0 Def) to control the perimeter. The aggressive downhill attacking not only yielded consistent scoring but also generated high-value hustle events that swung momentum.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +5.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 34.3m -18.3
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Dillon Brooks 28.7m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.1

Despite decent perimeter shooting, his overall value plummeted (-5.1 Total) due to poor floor spacing and hidden negative plays. His defensive metrics were unusually quiet for his standards, failing to offset the offensive stagnation when he forced contested mid-range looks. The lack of secondary playmaking ultimately dragged down his overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 28.7m -15.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Oso Ighodaro 25.1m
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

A dip in scoring volume masked a highly effective role-playing performance anchored by excellent defensive rotations (+3.0 Def). He maintained his streak of high-percentage finishing by strictly taking what the defense gave him in the paint. His ability to secure contested rebounds and alter shots at the rim provided crucial stability for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 25.1m -13.4
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.1

Tremendous effort plays (+6.1 Hustle) couldn't salvage a negative overall rating brought down by persistent shooting struggles. His inability to punish drop coverage from the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. While he fought hard for loose balls, the offensive spacing issues he created were too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 23.7m -12.6
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Defensive lapses and a continued slump in shooting efficiency resulted in a damaging -5.3 overall impact. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, repeatedly giving up straight-line drives. Offensively, forcing contested looks early in the shot clock disrupted the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 24.5m -13.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.1

Total dominance in the painted area fueled an elite +11.1 net impact in limited minutes. He operated as an impenetrable drop-coverage anchor (+6.9 Def), consistently deterring drives and forcing tough floaters. On the other end, his elite shot selection and lob-threat gravity warped the opposing defense entirely.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.9
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 20.1m -10.7
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Extreme passivity on offense led to a sharp drop in production and a brutal -6.2 total impact. He passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the half-court offense and allowing the defense to reset. Even with adequate rotational defense, his refusal to act as a scoring threat made him a severe liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 16.6m -8.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Failing to generate any meaningful offensive pressure resulted in a highly negative stint (-4.8 Total). He blended into the background during his minutes, offering minimal resistance at the point of attack and failing to organize the second unit. The lack of both scoring aggression and defensive disruption rendered his court time largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 12.2m -6.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A brief, low-usage appearance yielded a slightly negative impact due to an inability to influence the game's pace. While he converted his only look, he was consistently a step slow on defensive closeouts. His minutes were defined by floating on the perimeter rather than engaging in the physical battles inside.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 7.6m -4.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Ryan Dunn 2.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Garbage time action provided virtually no statistical footprint, resulting in a marginal -1.0 impact score. He simply connected passes on the perimeter without looking at the rim. The defensive metrics barely registered in such a short, eventless stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Rushing his lone offensive touch dragged his brief appearance into the negative (-2.1 Total). He bit on a pump fake defensively that compromised the team's shell scheme. The complete lack of hustle stats indicates he was caught out of position during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A missed jumper and zero defensive events defined a totally empty three-minute shift. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, allowing easy paint touches. The offense completely stalled out while he was tasked with initiating the sets.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 2.9m -1.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Koby Brea 2.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Poor shot selection in a tiny sample size tanked his box metrics and overall impact (-4.3 Total). He forced a contested look early in the clock rather than running the offensive system. Defensively, he offered zero resistance or hustle, allowing opponents to dictate the tempo effortlessly.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 2.9m -1.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1