← Team Metrics
Latest

Charlotte Hornets

2016-17
2016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26
Latest available releaseEvidence released Aug 22, 2026, 8:30 PM UTCLive database

What were the Charlotte Hornets in 2016-17, and what needed front-office attention?

CHO 2016-17: the clearest roster problems were Rim protection. The strongest covered areas were Creation. The main rotation-player dependency cases were Kemba Walker, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Cody Zeller. Structural basketball need, injuries, replacement lineups, and financial constraints are reported separately.

CoveragePartial8 supported · 3 withheld
Cap positionOver the cap, below the tax line, on selected player charges
Next decision dateJun 29, 2017 · 7 events →

What can be trusted

Supported strengths — production, who carries it, and what money is already committed.
Creation
81st percentile
Nicolas Batum carries 31.9%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Balanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Full reading

CHO 2016-17 Creation: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 80.8 league percentile. Nicolas Batum supplied 31.9% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. Financial commitment is shown separately and does not determine basketball quality.

What needs attention

The clearest roster problems the evidence supports.
Rim protection
23rd percentile
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist carries 31.3%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Underfunded structural need
Full reading

CHO 2016-17 Rim protection: this was a real roster weakness; production ranked at the 23.1 league percentile. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist supplied 31.3% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. The cap allocation to this structural need was comparatively low.

Every covered basketball function (11)
FunctionReadingLeague percentileLargest contributorRecent availabilitySalary commitment
CreationSupportedTeam strength81st percentileNicolas Batum · 31.9%No recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Defensive event creationSupportedMiddle of the league39th percentileMichael Kidd-Gilchrist · 28.5%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Interior finishingSupportedMiddle of the league62nd percentileFrank Kaminsky · 20.3%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Passing connectivitySupportedMiddle of the league73rd percentileNicolas Batum · 34.7%No recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Point-of-attack defense proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMarvin WilliamsNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
ReboundingSupportedMiddle of the league39th percentileMichael Kidd-Gilchrist · 26.2%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Rim pressureSupportedMiddle of the league58th percentileCody Zeller · 17.1%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Rim protectionSupportedStructural team problem23rd percentileMichael Kidd-Gilchrist · 31.3%No recent availability layer for this seasonUnderfunded structural need
ScreeningWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMarvin WilliamsNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Shooting and spacingSupportedMiddle-tier area with one-player risk35th percentileKemba Walker · 58.1%No recent availability layer for this seasonCost concentrated in one provider
Switch coverage proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMarvin WilliamsNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment

Who the team depends on

What disappears when a player is removed — and whether an observed replacement five exists.
Kemba Walker
Critical basketball and lineup dependence

CHO was highly dependent on Kemba Walker. Removing him cost about 58.1% of shooting production, and lineups with him performed 11.6 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Marco Belinelli, Ramon Sessions, Roy Hibbert, Nicolas Batum, Frank Kaminsky] over 166 possessions.

rotation 69%loses 58.1% of shooting and spacing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Kemba Walker

Marco Belinelli · Ramon Sessions · Roy Hibbert · Nicolas Batum · Frank Kaminsky

shrunk net -1.949 over 166 possessions — small sample

on floor 4,873 possessions · off floor 2,207 possessions

Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Lineup performance dependence

CHO lineups performed 4.4 points per 100 possessions better with Michael Kidd-Gilchrist than without him. The best supported alternative was [Marco Belinelli, Nicolas Batum, Kemba Walker, Cody Zeller, Frank Kaminsky] over 164 possessions.

rotation 59%loses 26.2% of rebounding
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Michael Kidd-Gilchrist

Marco Belinelli · Nicolas Batum · Kemba Walker · Cody Zeller · Frank Kaminsky

shrunk net 2.704 over 164 possessions — small sample

on floor 4,217 possessions · off floor 2,863 possessions

Cody Zeller
Lineup performance dependence

CHO lineups performed 9.8 points per 100 possessions better with Cody Zeller than without him. The best supported alternative was [Marvin Williams, Roy Hibbert, Nicolas Batum, Kemba Walker, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist] over 310 possessions.

rotation 44%loses 22.8% of defensive event creation
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Cody Zeller

Marvin Williams · Roy Hibbert · Nicolas Batum · Kemba Walker · Michael Kidd-Gilchrist

shrunk net 3.464 over 310 possessions

on floor 3,076 possessions · off floor 4,004 possessions

Function loss, lineup performance, and replacement-lineup evidence remain separate; none is causal player value.

What injuries change

Recent absences and the basketball needs they created or worsened.

No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season.

Where money is tied up

Cap position and salary allocation — shown beside the basketball picture, never blended into it.
WithheldThe team was over the cap but below the tax on selected player charges; exception detail remains withheld.
Selected player charges
$103.1M
Share of cap
109%
Tax line
$10.2M under
First apron
$14.2M under
Second apron
No governed line that season

Most salary is mapped to creation; the highest-need area is shooting and spacing. Salary-to-function mapping covers 86% of charges.

Exact figures
Salary cap: $94,143,000Luxury tax line: $113,287,000First apron: $117,287,000Second apron: Selected player charges: $103,054,004Source-reported payroll: $103,054,004 (source-named payroll total; not relabeled as cash or cap)

Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence.

What the evidence cannot answer

Deliberate abstentions — where the database refuses a conclusion rather than guessing.
PartialTeam picture available; recent availability layer unavailable8 of 11 functions supported
  • Point-of-attack defense proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Screening: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Switch coverage proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld

Exact transaction legality: Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence

Team-season situation report. Structural basketball quality, recent availability, player dependence, replacement lineups, and financial position remain separate. No acquisition recommendation, transaction grade, coaching grade, outcome claim, or causal value is inferred.