← Team Metrics
Latest

Charlotte Hornets

2017-18
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 2017-18, and what needed front-office attention?

CHO 2017-18: the clearest roster problems were Defensive event creation. The strongest covered areas were Rebounding, Interior finishing. The main rotation-player dependency cases were Kemba Walker, Dwight Howard, Nicolas Batum, Marvin Williams, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. 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 dateNo calendar release at this as-of time

What can be trusted

Supported strengths — production, who carries it, and what money is already committed.
Rebounding
93rd percentile
Dwight Howard carries 35.3%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Balanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Full reading

CHO 2017-18 Rebounding: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 92.6 league percentile. Dwight Howard supplied 35.3% 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.

Interior finishing
85th percentile
Dwight Howard carries 31.1%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Balanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Full reading

CHO 2017-18 Interior finishing: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 85.2 league percentile. Dwight Howard supplied 31.1% 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.
Defensive event creation
7th percentile
Kemba Walker carries 19.4%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Comparatively little salary committed to a critical need
Full reading

CHO 2017-18 Defensive event creation: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 7.4 league percentile. Kemba Walker supplied 19.4% 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 critical need was comparatively low.

Every covered basketball function (11)
FunctionReadingLeague percentileLargest contributorRecent availabilitySalary commitment
CreationSupportedMiddle of the league59th percentileKemba Walker · 31.9%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Defensive event creationSupportedCritical team problem7th percentileKemba Walker · 19.4%No recent availability layer for this seasonComparatively little salary committed to a critical need
Interior finishingSupportedTeam strength85th percentileDwight Howard · 31.1%No recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Passing connectivitySupportedMiddle of the league56th percentileKemba Walker · 33.9%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Point-of-attack defense proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMarvin WilliamsNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
ReboundingSupportedTeam strength93rd percentileDwight Howard · 35.3%No recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Rim pressureSupportedMiddle of the league48th percentileDwight Howard · 31.4%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
Rim protectionSupportedMiddle of the league26th percentileDwight Howard · 37.8%No recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
ScreeningWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMarvin WilliamsNo recent availability layer for this seasonBalanced or context-dependent salary commitment
Shooting and spacingSupportedMiddle of the league74th percentileKemba Walker · 31.5%No recent availability layer for this seasonHeavy or redundant salary already committed here
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 31.9% of creation production, and lineups with him performed 9.8 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Jeremy Lamb, Cody Zeller, Michael Carter-Williams, Frank Kaminsky, Treveon Graham] over 152 possessions.

rotation 70%loses 31.9% of creation
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Kemba Walker

Jeremy Lamb · Cody Zeller · Michael Carter-Williams · Frank Kaminsky · Treveon Graham

shrunk net 0.892 over 152 possessions — small sample

on floor 5,024 possessions · off floor 2,202 possessions

Dwight Howard
Single-skill dependence

CHO did not have strong functional backup for Dwight Howard in interior finish; removing him cost about 31.1% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Marvin Williams.

rotation 63%loses 31.1% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Dwight Howard

Jeremy Lamb · Cody Zeller · Michael Carter-Williams · Frank Kaminsky · Treveon Graham

shrunk net 0.892 over 152 possessions — small sample

on floor 4,526 possessions · off floor 2,700 possessions

Nicolas Batum
Single-skill dependence

CHO did not have strong functional backup for Nicolas Batum in passing; removing him cost about 30.6% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Kemba Walker.

rotation 50%loses 30.6% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Nicolas Batum

Dwight Howard · Marvin Williams · Kemba Walker · Jeremy Lamb · Dwayne Bacon

shrunk net 4.34 over 222 possessions — small sample

on floor 3,697 possessions · off floor 3,529 possessions

Marvin Williams
Lineup performance dependence

CHO lineups performed 3.3 points per 100 possessions better with Marvin Williams than without him. The best supported alternative was [Dwight Howard, Nicolas Batum, Kemba Walker, Jeremy Lamb, Frank Kaminsky] over 195 possessions.

rotation 51%loses 24.6% of shooting and spacing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Marvin Williams

Dwight Howard · Nicolas Batum · Kemba Walker · Jeremy Lamb · Frank Kaminsky

shrunk net 1.007 over 195 possessions — small sample

on floor 3,763 possessions · off floor 3,463 possessions

Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
Lineup performance dependence

CHO lineups performed 3.2 points per 100 possessions better with Michael Kidd-Gilchrist than without him. The best supported alternative was [Dwight Howard, Marvin Williams, Kemba Walker, Jeremy Lamb, Dwayne Bacon] over 222 possessions.

rotation 47%loses 14.0% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Michael Kidd-Gilchrist

Dwight Howard · Marvin Williams · Kemba Walker · Jeremy Lamb · Dwayne Bacon

shrunk net 4.34 over 222 possessions — small sample

on floor 3,443 possessions · off floor 3,783 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
$117.4M
Share of cap
118%
Tax line
$1.88M under
First apron
$7.88M under
Second apron
No governed line that season

Most salary is mapped to interior finishing; the highest-need area is defensive event creation. Salary-to-function mapping covers 99% of charges.

Exact figures
Salary cap: $99,093,000Luxury tax line: $119,266,000First apron: $125,266,000Second apron: Selected player charges: $117,382,664Source-reported payroll: $117,382,664 (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.