Skip to content
Charlotte Hornets

Eastern Conference

Charlotte
Hornets

45-39
L1

SHOOTING PROFILE

Season totals, league average in parentheses.

eFG%
51.5
(lg 53.5)
3P%
37.9
(lg 36.1)
3PA rate
53.7
(lg 44.1)
TS%
54.3
(lg 57.5)
TOV%
17.8
(lg 15.1)
FT rate
24.7
(lg 32.9)

Opponents against them: eFG% 55.3 · 3P% 42.2 · TS% 57.2

FIVE-MAN UNITS

Best lineups by net rating · minimum 100 possessions on each end.

LineupPossORtgDRtgNet
Bridges · Ball · Diabaté · Miller · Knueppel 990 112.9 93.4 +19.5
Bridges · Ball · Miller · Kalkbrenner · Knueppel 497 102.8 95.2 +7.6
Sexton · Williams · Kalkbrenner · Knueppel · James 210 93.1 88.1 +5.0
Bridges · Sexton · Kalkbrenner · Knueppel · James 302 104.5 101.4 +3.1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Kon Knueppel
G-F Yr 1 83G (82S)
+8.7
18.3 pts
5.3 reb
3.3 ast
31.5 min

This late-season stretch was defined by maddening volatility, as Kon Knueppel oscillated wildly between lethal floor-spacing and catastrophic shot selection. His raw scoring totals frequently masked hidden costs on the other end of the floor. Look no further than Mar 06 vs MIA, where he dropped 27 points on 6-of-10 shooting from deep but still posted a -7.5 impact score because his glaring defensive lapses gave those points right back. When his jumper fell and his effort aligned, however, he was utterly dominant. During the Mar 26 vs NYK matchup, Knueppel erupted for 26 points, 11 rebounds, and eight assists, generating a massive +14.5 impact because his flamethrower spacing completely broke the opposing defensive scheme wide open. Unfortunately, that brilliance faded into a brutal slump to close the campaign. By Apr 10 vs DET, his decision-making had completely cratered his value, resulting in a disastrous -14.7 impact as he clanked his way to 10 points and derailed the entire offense.

LaMelo Ball
G Yr 6 74G (71S)
+7.9
20.2 pts
4.8 reb
7.1 ast
28.1 min

This late-season stretch was defined by a wild pendulum of scorching shot-making and downright erratic volume chucking. Look no further than the 03/06 vs MIA matchup. Despite scoring 21 points, he posted a damaging -0.2 Impact score because his brutal 7-for-22 shooting performance and stubborn shot selection actively bailed out the defense. When he dialed in his efficiency, however, he was absolutely lethal. During the 04/05 vs MIN contest, Ball erupted for 35 points on a crisp 13-of-22 from the floor, generating a massive +25.4 Impact score by simply taking what the coverage gave him. Sometimes his jumper abandoned him entirely, but he still found ways to impact winning. On 03/03 vs DAL, he scored just 15 points on 5-of-19 shooting, yet salvaged a +9.4 Impact score through relentless defensive effort and sharp playmaking that yielded nine assists. He remains a mesmerizing talent, but reining in those chaotic shooting nights is his next necessary step.

Miles Bridges
F Yr 7 79G (79S)
+7.4
17.2 pts
5.8 reb
3.2 ast
31.1 min

Miles Bridges spent the final third of the season riding a chaotic pendulum between maddening inefficiency and blistering offensive dominance. Early March was ugly. His erratic shot selection dragged down his overall value, punctuated by a dismal 2-for-13 shooting night on 03/10 vs POR that resulted in a -1.9 Impact score. He eventually flipped the script by attacking the rim with intent and finding his outside stroke. On 04/05 vs MIN, Bridges erupted for 25 points, eight rebounds, and seven assists on a near-perfect 10-for-12 from the floor, generating a massive +26.0 Impact score through flawless shot-making and sharp ball movement. Even when his scoring volume dipped shortly after, he still found ways to tilt the floor. He posted a +13.4 Impact score on 04/07 vs BOS despite scoring only 13 points, driving winning basketball by swallowing up 12 rebounds and keeping the offense flowing with four assists. When Bridges trades contested jumpers for aggressive, multi-dimensional basketball, he becomes an absolute terror on the wing.

Brandon Miller
F Yr 3 67G (67S)
+6.9
20.1 pts
4.9 reb
3.3 ast
30.4 min

Brandon Miller spent this late-season stretch oscillating wildly between lethal scoring outbursts and baffling offensive duds. On 03/14 vs SAS, he clanked his way to a miserable 2-for-14 from the floor. That forced, erratic shot selection derailed the offense and resulted in a brutal -18.4 Impact score. He bounced back emphatically on 03/28 vs PHI. Pouring in 29 points and grabbing 8 rebounds, Miller posted a massive +22.4 Impact score. Even without recording a single assist, his aggressive rebounding and sharp perimeter shooting created immense value. Look at his brilliant all-around performance on 03/06 vs MIA. He racked up 22 points, 13 boards, and 5 assists for a +19.0 Impact score, a mark driven heavily by relentless glass-cleaning and smart ball movement.

Moussa Diabaté
F Yr 4 75G (49S)
+6.5
7.8 pts
8.8 reb
1.9 ast
26.1 min

Moussa Diabaté settled into a gritty, ultra-low-usage enforcer role during this late-season stretch, prioritizing dirty work and rebounding over offensive touches. He absolutely battered the interior on 03/24 vs SAC, pairing a hyper-efficient 17 points on 6-of-7 shooting with 11 boards to generate a massive +24.3 Impact score. That elite rating stemmed directly from his refusal to force bad shots, instead thriving by cleaning the glass and converting easy looks around the rim. This blue-collar approach allowed him to remain highly effective even when his scoring vanished entirely. Look no further than his performance on 03/06 vs MIA, where he ripped down 14 rebounds while taking just six shots to post a +8.1 Impact. However, his extreme offensive passivity occasionally crippled his team's spacing and bogged down the offense. During an ugly 04/07 vs BOS matchup, he logged 33 minutes but attempted just three shots for two points, resulting in a brutal -8.8 Impact score as defenders completely ignored him to pack the paint.

Coby White
G Yr 7 23G
+2.2
15.3 pts
2.9 reb
2.9 ast
19.5 min

Coby White spent this stretch operating as the ultimate boom-or-bust microwave off the bench. When his jumper was dialed in, he was an absolute terror. Look no further than the 03/24 vs SAC matchup, where he erupted for 27 points on a blistering 6-of-8 from beyond the arc. That hyper-efficient shot selection translated to a staggering +24.3 Impact score. However, his overall value plummeted when his game became entirely one-dimensional. During the 04/05 vs MIN contest, White dropped 17 points but still posted a -1.6 Impact because he failed to grab a single rebound and logged just one assist, rendering his buckets empty calories. Even when he stuffed the stat sheet on 03/21 vs MEM with eight rebounds and seven assists, his clunky 4-of-11 shooting dragged him to a -4.4 Impact, exposing the hidden costs of his volatile offensive diet.

Ryan Kalkbrenner
C Yr 1 71G (31S)
+1.4
7.5 pts
5.4 reb
0.8 ast
21.3 min

This late-season stretch was defined by maddening volatility, with Ryan Kalkbrenner looking like a hyper-efficient interior weapon one night and completely invisible the next. When he aggressively hunted his spots around the rim, the results were excellent. Look at his 03/10 vs POR performance, where he poured in 13 points and grabbed six rebounds on 6-of-8 shooting, generating a massive +9.6 Impact score by finishing plays and controlling the paint. He followed a similar script on 03/19 vs ORL, logging a +7.2 Impact by converting all five of his field goal attempts to tally 13 points. However, when his teammates stopped feeding him or he stopped fighting for positioning, his value absolutely plummeted. During the 03/28 vs PHI matchup, Kalkbrenner managed just four points and a single rebound in 18 minutes. That passive cardio session resulted in a brutal -9.9 Impact, exposing the hidden cost of a big man who fails to anchor the glass or command defensive attention when the offense ignores him.

Collin Sexton
G Yr 8 42G (12S)
+0.5
14.2 pts
1.9 reb
3.7 ast
22.3 min

This late-season stretch was defined by a violent shift from an actively harmful chucker to a highly adaptable offensive engine. Early on, his poor shot selection was a glaring liability, perfectly captured on 02/26 vs POR when he posted a brutal -14.1 Impact score by forcing up nine shots to score just 10 empty points. The turning point arrived on 03/05 vs PHX, where Sexton erupted for 30 points and five assists. He generated a massive +25.2 Impact score in that matchup through hyper-efficient 11-for-19 shooting and smart distribution. Yet his most fascinating evolution occurred when his jumper completely abandoned him on 04/07 vs WAS. Despite clanking his way to a highly inefficient 15 points on an abysmal 5-for-16 shooting night, Sexton still managed a strong +10.8 Impact score. Instead of compounding his shooting woes, he salvaged his value on the margins by crashing the glass for nine rebounds and dishing out seven assists. It was a refreshing sign of maturity from a guard who previously bled value whenever his primary weapon misfired.

PJ Hall
C Yr 2 12G (2S)
-2.3
6.1 pts
5.5 reb
0.7 ast
15.6 min
Grant Williams
F Yr 7 38G (3S)
-2.3
6.8 pts
3.8 reb
1.5 ast
19.6 min

Grant Williams endured a wildly erratic stretch as a reserve, swinging violently between gritty defensive glue guy and offensive dead weight. Take his 04/10 vs DET performance, for instance. Despite scoring a mere 2 points on brutal 1-for-5 shooting, he posted a +6.0 Impact score by doing the dirty work—crashing the glass for four rebounds and blowing up opponent actions on the defensive end. Conversely, his 04/07 vs BOS outing highlighted the hidden costs of his one-dimensional nights. He tallied 9 points—one of his highest totals in this span—but still dragged the bench down with a -5.9 Impact score because he settled for perimeter looks and offered absolutely zero playmaking. He found a better balance on 04/02 vs PHX, where a strong +6.8 Impact score glossed over an ugly 3-for-10 shooting night because he relentlessly attacked the boards for seven rebounds. Ultimately, this run made one thing abundantly clear. When his outside shot abandons him, Williams must rely entirely on sheer hustle to justify his spot in the rotation.

Tidjane Salaün
F Yr 2 38G
-2.5
5.9 pts
4.0 reb
0.8 ast
15.4 min

Tidjane Salaün’s midseason stretch was defined by tantalizing flashes of energy that were ultimately swallowed by erratic shooting and a vanishing role. He looked like a genuine steal on 01/19 vs DEN, pouring in 13 points and grabbing 11 rebounds on highly efficient 6-of-8 shooting. That relentless activity on the glass and smart shot selection earned him a massive +13.9 impact score. The offensive discipline rarely lasted, though. He completely abandoned his interior game on 02/20 vs CLE, settling for bad perimeter looks to finish with just 3 points. Chucking away possessions with a 1-of-7 field goal mark—including an abysmal 1-of-6 from deep—dragged his value down to a brutal -12.3 impact score. By the spring, his leash had disappeared entirely, bottoming out on 04/12 vs NYK with zero points and zero rebounds in four empty minutes. That ghost-like performance yielded a -11.6 impact, highlighting the harsh reality that a complete lack of floor engagement makes him an active detriment off the bench.

Antonio Reeves
G Yr 2 10G
-4.6
2.7 pts
0.8 reb
0.3 ast
6.8 min
Liam McNeeley
F Yr 1 32G
-5.4
4.2 pts
2.3 reb
0.8 ast
11.7 min

Liam McNeeley spent this ten-game stretch buried at the end of the bench, struggling to find any sort of rhythm in sporadic minutes. When he did get extended run, his offensive limitations were glaring. Take the game on 01/04 vs CHI, where he logged 13 minutes but posted a disastrous -11.6 Impact score due to a completely scoreless, 0-for-3 shooting performance that stalled the offense. Even when given a stretch-high 21 minutes on 01/08 vs TOR, poor perimeter shot selection led to an ugly 1-for-4 shooting night and a -7.5 Impact, dragging the team down despite his seven total points. He finally flipped the script late in the season on 03/29 vs BOS. In just 11 minutes of action, McNeeley erupted for a +10.8 Impact score. He earned that massive positive mark by maximizing his touches, scoring 10 highly efficient points on just three field goal attempts while aggressively crashing the glass for six rebounds.

Sion James
G Yr 1 84G (19S)
-5.8
5.3 pts
3.5 reb
2.0 ast
22.3 min

This late-season stretch was defined by extreme volatility, with Sion James oscillating wildly between game-wrecking defensive energy and total offensive invisibility. He engineered a brilliant rotation shift on Mar 19 vs ORL, posting a massive +16.5 impact score despite scoring just six points because his off-the-charts hustle (+7.3) and flawless shooting execution completely tilted the floor. Even when his perimeter stroke was dialed in, hidden costs occasionally dragged him down. During the Mar 29 vs BOS matchup, he scored 11 points but still recorded a slightly negative -0.2 impact because a glaring lack of secondary effort plays neutralized his offensive production. Yet, James could still salvage his minutes through sheer defensive grit when his jumper completely abandoned him. On Apr 07 vs BOS, he managed a +2.0 impact score despite scoring just two points on 1-for-7 shooting because he provided absolute clamps at the point of attack, generating a +10.2 defensive rating by blowing up dribble hand-offs. He remains a chaotic bench piece who can swing a game with his willpower just as easily as he can derail it with passivity.

Pat Connaughton
G Yr 11 43G
-6.0
2.6 pts
1.5 reb
0.4 ast
7.0 min

Pat Connaughton spent this stretch tethered to the very end of the bench, logging empty, low-impact minutes. During an eight-minute run on 03/11 vs SAC, he hoisted up two missed shots and grabbed just one rebound. That lack of production resulted in a dismal -12.7 Impact score, as poor shot selection and an inability to generate offense dragged down his minutes. Even when given a rare extended look, his overall effect remained stubbornly negative. He logged 18 minutes on 04/03 vs IND, knocking down a pair of threes for seven points, but still posted a -2.0 Impact because his scoring was entirely offset by sluggish defensive rotations. The veteran wing looked completely out of rhythm during brief cameos, like his four-minute stint on 04/10 vs DET where he put up a -11.6 Impact after missing his only shot and failing to record a single rebound or assist. He simply could not find ways to contribute without the ball in his hands.

Tre Mann
G Yr 5 54G (1S)
-6.2
5.4 pts
1.7 reb
1.6 ast
12.5 min

Tre Mann's late-season stretch was defined by a brutal demotion to the end of the bench, turning him into a garbage-time afterthought. Despite scoring only seven points on 02/24 vs CHI, he managed a respectable +1.9 Impact score because he efficiently hit his shots and crashed the glass for four rebounds in just eight minutes. That fleeting spark was quickly extinguished by a crippling lack of rhythm. Look at his disastrous outing on 03/04 vs BOS. He registered a miserable -11.2 Impact score after missing all three of his shot attempts and failing to record a single counting stat in four empty minutes. He was equally invisible a day earlier on 03/03 vs DAL, putting up a literal row of zeros to earn a -12.1 Impact mark. When a guard plays limited minutes, they cannot afford to be an offensive black hole. Mann repeatedly tanked his advanced metrics by forcing cold jumpers instead of moving the ball, ensuring he remained strictly relegated to mop-up duty.

KJ Simpson
Guard Yr 1 14G (2S)
-6.5
6.0 pts
2.1 reb
2.5 ast
15.9 min

This six-game stretch was defined by deep-bench irrelevance and an agonizing inability to capitalize on garbage-time minutes. Given a rare extended look on 02/25 vs BOS, Simpson managed just 2 points on 1-for-5 shooting across 14 minutes, resulting in a -0.3 impact score. Things rapidly deteriorated from there. He bottomed out during a brutal two-minute cameo on 04/01 vs UTA, posting an abysmal -13.8 impact score. When a guard bleeds that much value in just 120 seconds, it points directly to blown defensive rotations, poor spacing, and rushed shot selection. He offered zero redemption on 04/08 vs MEM, logging a staggering -12.7 impact in merely three minutes. You simply cannot survive on an NBA roster when your brief moments on the hardwood actively sabotage the team.

Josh Green
G Yr 6 60G
-6.6
4.2 pts
1.8 reb
0.8 ast
15.4 min

Josh Green became an absolute ghost on the floor during this late-season stretch, drifting aimlessly through empty bench minutes. He routinely logged pure cardio sessions that actively hurt his team. Look no further than his outing on 04/14 vs MIA. Green vanished entirely in five minutes of action, grabbing a single rebound while posting a catastrophic -16.1 Impact score because he offered zero offensive gravity or defensive resistance. Even when the coaching staff extended his leash, the overall production stayed incredibly flat. During a 24-minute shift on 04/03 vs IND, he managed just six points and two assists. Despite hitting a pair of threes in that contest, his passive shot selection and lack of secondary playmaking dragged his Impact down to -4.6. When a rotational wing consistently fails to leave a dent in the box score, the hidden cost is a bleeding second unit.

Mason Plumlee
Forward-Center Yr 12 14G (2S)
-7.0
1.9 pts
2.9 reb
1.1 ast
8.9 min

This six-game stretch was defined by absolute irrelevance, with Mason Plumlee reduced to a glorified spectator who barely broke a sweat. During the 03/10 vs BOS matchup, he logged a single minute of floor time, grabbing one rebound and registering a dismal -10.0 Impact score simply because he wasn't out there long enough to generate any actual value. He matched that rock-bottom -10.0 Impact score on 04/01 vs GSW, completely vanishing through seven minutes of action with zero points, zero rebounds, and zero assists. Even a surprise promotion to the starting lineup on 04/12 vs DEN couldn't salvage his production. He played a stretch-high 16 minutes in that contest but only managed two points and three boards, resulting in a poor -6.4 Impact score. His consistently dreadful impact grades stem from a complete lack of offensive aggression, taking just two total field goal attempts across the entire span while failing to protect the glass. He was merely occupying space out there, offering virtually zero resistance or playmaking when his number was finally called.

Xavier Tillman
Forward Yr 5 17G
-7.1
0.9 pts
1.2 reb
0.5 ast
4.7 min

Xavier Tillman spent this ten-game stretch anchored to the deep bench, serving as an afterthought rather than a viable rotation piece. Even when handed a rare 17 minutes on 04/03 vs IND, he managed just two points and generated a dismal -9.0 Impact score because his minimal rebounding and total lack of scoring aggression dragged down the unit. A brief cameo on 03/29 vs BOS yielded an even worse -11.3 Impact score in just four minutes. That disastrous rating stemmed from entirely empty cardio and a missed perimeter shot that killed the team's offensive spacing. He was functionally invisible. Tillman did manage to scrape together four points on perfect shooting during a two-minute stint on 04/05 vs MIN, but his -2.1 Impact score revealed the defensive apathy that accompanied those garbage-time buckets. When a big man cannot command offensive attention or protect the rim, his minutes become a severe liability.

Drew Peterson
F Yr 3 6G
-10.5
0.8 pts
1.5 reb
0.3 ast
10.7 min
L
@ ORL ORL
90 CHA — ORL 121
ORL @ ORL
90 — 121
Fri, Apr 17
Play-In Analysis
-31
W
vs MIA MIA
126 MIA — CHA 127
MIA vs MIA
127 — 126
Tue, Apr 14
Play-In Analysis
+1
W
@ NYK NYK
110 CHA — NYK 96
NYK @ NYK
110 — 96
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
+14
L
vs DET DET
118 DET — CHA 100
DET vs DET
100 — 118
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
-18
L
@ BOS BOS
102 CHA — BOS 113
BOS @ BOS
102 — 113
Tue, Apr 7
Analysis
-11
W
@ MIN MIN
122 CHA — MIN 108
MIN @ MIN
122 — 108
Sun, Apr 5
Analysis
+14
W
vs IND IND
108 IND — CHA 129
IND vs IND
129 — 108
Fri, Apr 3
Analysis
+21
W
vs PHX PHX
107 PHX — CHA 127
PHX vs PHX
127 — 107
Thu, Apr 2
Analysis
+20
W
@ BKN BKN
117 CHA — BKN 86
BKN @ BKN
117 — 86
Tue, Mar 31
Analysis
+31
L
vs BOS BOS
114 BOS — CHA 99
BOS vs BOS
99 — 114
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
-15
L
vs PHI PHI
118 PHI — CHA 114
PHI vs PHI
114 — 118
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
-4
W
vs NYK NYK
103 NYK — CHA 114
NYK vs NYK
114 — 103
Thu, Mar 26
Analysis
+11
W
vs SAC SAC
90 SAC — CHA 134
SAC vs SAC
134 — 90
Tue, Mar 24
Analysis
+44
W
vs MEM MEM
101 MEM — CHA 124
MEM vs MEM
124 — 101
Sat, Mar 21
Analysis
+23
W
vs ORL ORL
111 ORL — CHA 130
ORL vs ORL
130 — 111
Thu, Mar 19
Analysis
+19
W
vs MIA MIA
106 MIA — CHA 136
MIA vs MIA
136 — 106
Tue, Mar 17
Analysis
+30
L
@ SAS SAS
102 CHA — SAS 115
SAS @ SAS
102 — 115
Sat, Mar 14
Analysis
-13
W
@ SAC SAC
117 CHA — SAC 109
SAC @ SAC
117 — 109
Wed, Mar 11
Analysis
+8
W
@ POR POR
103 CHA — POR 101
POR @ POR
103 — 101
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
+2
L
@ PHX PHX
99 CHA — PHX 111
PHX @ PHX
99 — 111
Sun, Mar 8
Analysis
-12
L
vs MIA MIA
128 MIA — CHA 120
MIA vs MIA
120 — 128
Fri, Mar 6
Analysis
-8
W
@ BOS BOS
118 CHA — BOS 89
BOS @ BOS
118 — 89
Wed, Mar 4
Analysis
+29
W
vs DAL DAL
90 DAL — CHA 117
DAL vs DAL
117 — 90
Tue, Mar 3
Analysis
+27
W
vs POR POR
93 POR — CHA 109
POR vs POR
109 — 93
Sat, Feb 28
Analysis
+16
W
@ IND IND
133 CHA — IND 109
IND @ IND
133 — 109
Thu, Feb 26
Analysis
+24
W
@ CHI CHI
131 CHA — CHI 99
CHI @ CHI
131 — 99
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
+32
W
@ WAS WAS
129 CHA — WAS 112
WAS @ WAS
129 — 112
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
+17
L
vs CLE CLE
118 CLE — CHA 113
CLE vs CLE
113 — 118
Fri, Feb 20
Analysis
-5
L
vs HOU HOU
105 HOU — CHA 101
HOU vs HOU
101 — 105
Thu, Feb 19
Analysis
-4
W
vs ATL ATL
107 ATL — CHA 110
ATL vs ATL
110 — 107
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
+3
L
vs DET DET
110 DET — CHA 104
DET vs DET
104 — 110
Mon, Feb 9
Analysis
-6
W
@ ATL ATL
126 CHA — ATL 119
ATL @ ATL
126 — 119
Sat, Feb 7
Analysis
+7
W
@ HOU HOU
109 CHA — HOU 99
HOU @ HOU
109 — 99
Thu, Feb 5
Analysis
+10
W
vs NOP NOP
95 NOP — CHA 102
NOP vs NOP
102 — 95
Mon, Feb 2
Analysis
+7
W
vs SAS SAS
106 SAS — CHA 111
SAS vs SAS
111 — 106
Sat, Jan 31
Analysis
+5
W
@ DAL DAL
123 CHA — DAL 121
DAL @ DAL
123 — 121
Thu, Jan 29
Analysis
+2
W
@ MEM MEM
112 CHA — MEM 97
MEM @ MEM
112 — 97
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
+15
W
vs PHI PHI
93 PHI — CHA 130
PHI vs PHI
130 — 93
Mon, Jan 26
Analysis
+37
W
vs WAS WAS
115 WAS — CHA 119
WAS vs WAS
119 — 115
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
+4
W
@ ORL ORL
124 CHA — ORL 97
ORL @ ORL
124 — 97
Thu, Jan 22
Analysis
+27
L
vs CLE CLE
94 CLE — CHA 87
CLE vs CLE
87 — 94
Wed, Jan 21
Analysis
-7
W
@ DEN DEN
110 CHA — DEN 87
DEN @ DEN
110 — 87
Sun, Jan 18
Analysis
+23
L
@ GSW GSW
116 CHA — GSW 136
GSW @ GSW
116 — 136
Sat, Jan 17
Analysis
-20
W
@ LAL LAL
135 CHA — LAL 117
LAL @ LAL
135 — 117
Thu, Jan 15
Analysis
+18
L
@ LAC LAC
109 CHA — LAC 117
LAC @ LAC
109 — 117
Mon, Jan 12
Analysis
-8
W
@ UTA UTA
150 CHA — UTA 95
UTA @ UTA
150 — 95
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
+55
L
vs IND IND
114 IND — CHA 112
IND vs IND
112 — 114
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
-2
L
vs TOR TOR
97 TOR — CHA 96
TOR vs TOR
96 — 97
Wed, Jan 7
Analysis
-1
W
@ OKC OKC
124 CHA — OKC 97
OKC @ OKC
124 — 97
Mon, Jan 5
Analysis
+27
W
@ CHI CHI
112 CHA — CHI 99
CHI @ CHI
112 — 99
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
+13
L
@ MIL MIL
121 CHA — MIL 122
MIL @ MIL
121 — 122
Fri, Jan 2
Analysis
-1
L
vs GSW GSW
132 GSW — CHA 125
GSW vs GSW
125 — 132
Wed, Dec 31
Analysis
-7
L
vs MIL MIL
123 MIL — CHA 113
MIL vs MIL
113 — 123
Mon, Dec 29
Analysis
-10
W
@ ORL ORL
120 CHA — ORL 105
ORL @ ORL
120 — 105
Fri, Dec 26
Analysis
+15
W
vs WAS WAS
109 WAS — CHA 126
WAS vs WAS
126 — 109
Tue, Dec 23
Analysis
+17
L
@ CLE CLE
132 CHA — CLE 139
CLE @ CLE
132 — 139
Mon, Dec 22
Analysis
-7
L
@ DET DET
86 CHA — DET 112
DET @ DET
86 — 112
Sat, Dec 20
Analysis
-26
W
vs ATL ATL
126 ATL — CHA 133
ATL vs ATL
133 — 126
Thu, Dec 18
Analysis
+7
W
@ CLE CLE
119 CHA — CLE 111
CLE @ CLE
119 — 111
Sun, Dec 14
Analysis
+8
L
vs CHI CHI
129 CHI — CHA 126
CHI vs CHI
126 — 129
Fri, Dec 12
Analysis
-3
L
vs DEN DEN
115 DEN — CHA 106
DEN vs DEN
106 — 115
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
-9
W
@ TOR TOR
111 CHA — TOR 86
TOR @ TOR
111 — 86
Fri, Dec 5
Analysis
+25
L
@ NYK NYK
104 CHA — NYK 119
NYK @ NYK
104 — 119
Wed, Dec 3
Analysis
-15
L
@ BKN BKN
103 CHA — BKN 116
BKN @ BKN
103 — 116
Mon, Dec 1
Analysis
-13
W
vs TOR TOR
111 TOR — CHA 118
TOR vs TOR
118 — 111
Sat, Nov 29
Analysis
+7
W
vs CHI CHI
116 CHI — CHA 123
CHI vs CHI
123 — 116
Fri, Nov 28
Analysis
+7
L
vs NYK NYK
129 NYK — CHA 101
NYK vs NYK
101 — 129
Wed, Nov 26
Analysis
-28
L
@ ATL ATL
110 CHA — ATL 113
ATL @ ATL
110 — 113
Sun, Nov 23
Analysis
-3
L
vs LAC LAC
131 LAC — CHA 116
LAC vs LAC
116 — 131
Sat, Nov 22
Analysis
-15
L
@ IND IND
118 CHA — IND 127
IND @ IND
118 — 127
Wed, Nov 19
Analysis
-9
L
@ TOR TOR
108 CHA — TOR 110
TOR @ TOR
108 — 110
Mon, Nov 17
Analysis
-2
L
vs OKC OKC
109 OKC — CHA 96
OKC vs OKC
96 — 109
Sat, Nov 15
Analysis
-13
L
@ MIL MIL
134 CHA — MIL 147
MIL @ MIL
134 — 147
Fri, Nov 14
Analysis
-13
W
vs MIL MIL
100 MIL — CHA 111
MIL vs MIL
111 — 100
Wed, Nov 12
Analysis
+11
L
vs LAL LAL
121 LAL — CHA 111
LAL vs LAL
111 — 121
Mon, Nov 10
Analysis
-10
L
@ MIA MIA
108 CHA — MIA 126
MIA @ MIA
108 — 126
Fri, Nov 7
Analysis
-18
L
@ NOP NOP
112 CHA — NOP 116
NOP @ NOP
112 — 116
Tue, Nov 4
Analysis
-4
W
vs UTA UTA
103 UTA — CHA 126
UTA vs UTA
126 — 103
Sun, Nov 2
Analysis
+23
L
vs MIN MIN
122 MIN — CHA 105
MIN vs MIN
105 — 122
Sat, Nov 1
Analysis
-17
L
vs ORL ORL
123 ORL — CHA 107
ORL vs ORL
107 — 123
Thu, Oct 30
Analysis
-16
L
@ MIA MIA
117 CHA — MIA 144
MIA @ MIA
117 — 144
Tue, Oct 28
-27
W
@ WAS WAS
139 CHA — WAS 113
WAS @ WAS
139 — 113
Sun, Oct 26
Analysis
+26
L
@ PHI PHI
121 CHA — PHI 125
PHI @ PHI
121 — 125
Sat, Oct 25
Analysis
-4
W
vs BKN BKN
117 BKN — CHA 136
BKN vs BKN
136 — 117
Wed, Oct 22
Analysis
+19