CHA

2025-26 Season

MILES BRIDGES

Charlotte Hornets | Forward | 6-7
Miles Bridges
17.3 PPG
5.8 RPG
3.2 APG
31.2 MPG
+0.6 Impact

Bridges produces at an average rate for a 31-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.6
Scoring +10.4
Points 17.3 PPG × +1.00 = +17.3
Missed 2PT 3.6/g × -0.78 = -2.8
Missed 3PT 4.0/g × -0.87 = -3.5
Missed FT 0.6/g × -1.00 = -0.6
Creation +3.5
Assists 3.2/g × +0.50 = +1.6
Off. Rebounds 1.5/g × +1.26 = +1.9
Turnovers -2.7
Turnovers 1.4/g × -1.95 = -2.7
Defense +1.2
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 4.4/g × +0.30 = +1.3
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.7
Contested Shots 5.9/g × +0.20 = +1.2
Deflections 1.3/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.5/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.3
Raw Impact +15.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −14.5
Net Impact
+0.6
57th pctl vs Forwards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 83th
17.3 PPG
Efficiency 54th
57.0% TS
Playmaking 83th
3.2 APG
Rebounding 80th
5.8 RPG
Rim Protection 38th
0.13/min
Hustle 27th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 52th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Miles Bridges spent the opening stretch of the season riding a chaotic rollercoaster of volatile shot selection. He frequently hurt his team with empty production, perfectly illustrated during the 11/26 vs NYK matchup. Despite putting up 17 points, he dragged the offense down with poor decisions that resulted in a deeply negative -9.2 impact score. A similar disaster unfolded on 11/07 vs MIA. He shot a dismal 4-for-16 from the floor, yielding a brutal -12.3 impact driven by a steady stream of disastrous perimeter attempts. Yet, when Bridges channeled his physicality instead of chucking jumpers, he became a genuine two-way terror. During the 10/22 vs BKN game, he scored a modest 18 points but posted a massive +12.9 impact because he bullied smaller defenders in the paint and anchored the floor with elite defensive effort. If he can stop settling for contested threes and consistently attack the rim, this erratic production might finally stabilize into reliable value.

Maddening inconsistency defined this stretch for Miles Bridges, as he oscillated wildly between bruising two-way force and outright defensive liability. His volatile value was glaringly obvious during the 12/20 vs DET game. Despite a respectable 19-point scoring night, he posted a disastrous -10.7 impact score because poor defensive resistance completely erased his offensive contributions. He flipped the script in the 01/03 vs CHI matchup, punishing mismatches to rack up 26 points and 14 rebounds for a massive +11.1 impact rating. Bridges also found ways to be highly effective without demanding the basketball. During the 01/10 vs UTA contest, he took just six shots for 15 points but still generated a stellar +9.5 impact. He fueled that efficient outing with relentless energy on the glass and loose balls, earning a +3.9 hustle score to set the tone. When he commits to the dirty work, he is a winning player, but his tendency to take defensive possessions off keeps his overall ceiling frustratingly capped.

A maddening rollercoaster of shot selection defined this stretch for Miles Bridges. When he settled for contested jumpers, his on-court value completely cratered. Look no further than the 03/08 vs PHX matchup, where despite scoring a respectable 16 points, his perimeter chucking stalled the offense and dragged his impact score down to a troubling -4.1. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to stay afloat without filling the basket. During the 02/26 vs IND contest, Bridges managed a mere 7 points but still posted a +1.7 impact because he leaned entirely into high-level defense rather than forcing bad looks. When he actually put his head down and attacked, he was an absolute wrecking ball. He bullied his way to 26 points on 11-of-15 shooting on 03/11 vs SAC, yielding a massive +9.7 impact driven entirely by relentless interior finishing and superb shot selection. To become a reliable weapon instead of a nightly gamble, Bridges must permanently abandon the isolation threes and embrace his identity as a downhill bruiser.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Bridges's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 49% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Bridges consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 76 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

J. Johnson 122.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 18
P. Banchero 121.8 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 38.5%
PPP 0.22
PTS 27
P. Siakam 103.7 poss
FG% 55.0%
3P% 55.6%
PPP 0.26
PTS 27
G. Antetokounmpo 83.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 45.5%
PPP 0.28
PTS 23
K. Middleton 70.7 poss
FG% 18.2%
3P% 16.7%
PPP 0.14
PTS 10
S. Barnes 66.3 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 15
P. Williams 64.8 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.39
PTS 25
B. Ingram 60.3 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 16.7%
PPP 0.18
PTS 11
J. Hart 56.3 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 11
T. Harris 55.3 poss
FG% 22.2%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

P. Banchero 135.3 poss
FG% 48.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 37
S. Barnes 104.9 poss
FG% 69.2%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 20
G. Antetokounmpo 88.9 poss
FG% 47.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 19
P. Siakam 83.7 poss
FG% 68.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 29
D. Barlow 63.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
J. Johnson 61.7 poss
FG% 47.1%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.32
PTS 20
O. Okongwu 60.5 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
P. Larsson 60.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 7
K. Middleton 56.9 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 13
J. Grant 56.1 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 57.1%
PPP 0.29
PTS 16

SEASON STATS

72
Games
17.3
PPG
5.8
RPG
3.2
APG
0.6
SPG
0.4
BPG
45.4
FG%
33.0
3P%
82.8
FT%
31.2
MPG

GAME LOG

72 games played