GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 30.2m
20
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Smart spatial awareness and decisive off-ball movement generated a steady diet of clean looks. His positive rating was anchored by disciplined closeouts and an ability to stretch the defense without forcing contested actions.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +37.4
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 30.2m -17.1
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 30.0m
18
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.1

Careless ball security and highly speculative perimeter shot selection erased the value of his elite playmaking vision. He generated spectacular looks for others but gave the momentum right back by forcing heavily contested transition threes.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +31.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 30.0m -17.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brandon Miller 29.6m
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.5

Fluid shot creation and highly engaged perimeter defense resulted in a dominant two-way showing. He consistently punished drop coverage with decisive pull-ups while using his length to disrupt passing lanes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 29.6m -16.8
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Miles Bridges 25.6m
19
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

A high-usage offensive approach yielded diminishing returns due to forced isolation attempts late in the shot clock. While he found the bottom of the net frequently, defensive lapses and empty possessions kept his overall influence strictly neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 29.5%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 25.6m -14.6
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Elite rim deterrence and relentless screen-setting drove a highly effective shift despite a slight dip in his usual finishing efficiency. He completely walled off the paint during a crucial second-half stretch, turning missed opponent layups into immediate transition advantages.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 24.6m -14.1
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
Josh Green 24.4m
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Overaggressive closeouts and poorly timed gambles in the passing lanes led to compromised defensive rotations. Even with an uptick in scoring efficiency, his tendency to foul jump shooters heavily penalized his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 24.4m -14.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Sion James 22.9m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Shattering his usual baseline production, he provided a massive perimeter spark by confidently stepping into catch-and-shoot opportunities. His unexpected floor-spacing completely warped the opponent's defensive shell and opened up driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +56.0
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 22.9m -13.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Getting targeted on switches by quicker guards slowly bled away the value of his spot-up shooting. His inability to contain dribble penetration at the point of attack forced the defense into constant rotation, resulting in a net-negative shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 17.7m -10.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Gritty screen-setting and physical box-outs defined a workmanlike shift that stabilized the interior rotation. Though completely invisible as a scoring threat, his willingness to do the dirty work prevented the opposition from establishing any rhythm in the paint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +63.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 17.1m -9.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Coby White 14.2m
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

A complete lack of secondary effort and zero hustle plays muted the impact of his quick-strike scoring. He operated almost entirely as a one-way player, failing to fight through screens or secure loose balls during his brief rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.8%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +8.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 14.2m -8.0
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tre Mann 3.5m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Instant offensive ignition defined this micro-shift, as he immediately attacked the rim against a set defense. He maximized his brief floor time by providing a flawless burst of scoring without making any rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 3.5m -2.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Pascal Siakam 33.9m
30
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.9

A masterclass in two-way dominance where relentless rim pressure broke the opponent's defensive shell. His massive impact score was heavily bolstered by elite defensive activity and high-motor hustle plays that consistently killed opposing momentum.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.4
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 33.9m -19.3
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kobe Brown 28.0m
12
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Despite maintaining his efficient shooting streak, his overall impact plunged into the red due to costly defensive breakdowns. The scoring punch was entirely offset by giving up high-value looks in transition and failing to generate meaningful hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 28.0m -16.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Quenton Jackson 25.2m
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.1

An absolute sparkplug performance defined by relentless downhill attacking and elite energy metrics. He shattered his usual production baseline by turning defensive deflections into immediate transition opportunities, driving a massive positive swing for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +15.5
Hustle +6.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 25.2m -14.5
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ben Sheppard 24.6m
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.6

Floating through stretches of the game without leaving a physical imprint resulted in a severely depressed impact rating. Poor shot quality and a glaring lack of loose-ball recoveries allowed his matchup to dictate the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 24.6m -14.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 24.0m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

An abysmal perimeter shooting display cratered his overall value, as he settled for low-quality looks from deep instead of playing to his strengths. While he worked hard on the glass and provided solid rim protection, those empty offensive possessions ultimately dragged the offense into the mud.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 24.0m -13.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.0

Extreme offensive passivity allowed the defense to completely ignore him and overload the strong side. Playing heavy minutes without applying any rim pressure or playmaking gravity resulted in a catastrophic drag on the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -17.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 30.2m -17.3
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 22.8m
7
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.3

Elite offensive orchestration and sharp point-of-attack defense kept the offensive engine humming smoothly. He consistently manipulated defensive rotations to create high-value looks for teammates, proving that low-volume shooting can still yield a highly positive floor impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 22.8m -13.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Obi Toppin 20.0m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive spacing errors and a failure to secure contested rebounds wiped out the value of his perimeter shot-making. His inability to anchor the weak side allowed the opposition to capitalize on second-chance opportunities, pushing his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -4.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 20.0m -11.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Taelon Peter 18.1m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Getting caught ball-watching on the defensive end led to backbreaking backdoor cuts that ruined his overall metrics. Even when he connected from deep, his inability to stay in front of his primary assignment bled points at an unsustainable rate.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 18.1m -10.3
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 13.1m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

A steep drop in offensive assertiveness combined with sluggish pick-and-roll coverage made him a target during his brief stint. Opponents aggressively hunted him in switches, completely neutralizing the interior gravity he normally provides.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -72.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 13.1m -7.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1