GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 36.5m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

Excellent point-of-attack defense against the opposing primary creator kept his overall impact firmly in the positive. He found a great rhythm on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners, though a handful of sloppy live-ball turnovers slightly capped his ceiling. His ability to fight through heavy screens defined his two-way value tonight.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 36.5m -20.7
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 32.4m
9
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.8

Suffocating ball pressure set the tone defensively, constantly disrupting the opponent's offensive timing. He generated massive value through deflections and loose ball recoveries, acting as a one-man havoc creator. His disciplined navigation of pick-and-rolls defined a gritty, high-motor performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +6.2
Defense +6.8
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 32.4m -18.5
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 30.0m
7
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Forcing low-percentage looks offensively completely negated his otherwise stellar rim protection. He routinely settled for contested push shots rather than passing out of double teams, killing multiple possessions. While his weak-side shot blocking was elite, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips kept him in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 26.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.1
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 30.0m -17.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Norman Powell 27.4m
25
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Aggressive downhill drives forced defensive collapses, though his tunnel vision occasionally resulted in offensive fouls. He provided a necessary scoring punch but gave some of it back by dying on screens defensively. A flurry of successful isolation plays in the second quarter showcased his value as a primary initiator.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 27.4m -15.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 26.8m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.0

Surgical precision on backdoor cuts and transition finishes drove a highly efficient offensive performance. He punished defensive over-helps by constantly relocating to open space, maximizing the value of every touch. A critical third-quarter stretch of flawless off-ball movement completely broke the opponent's zone scheme.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.1%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 26.8m -15.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+5.1

Tremendous connective passing and methodical post footwork systematically dismantled defensive switches. He rarely forced the issue, letting the game come to him and exploiting mismatches with high-IQ reads. A brilliant sequence of high-post facilitation in the fourth quarter cemented his positive impact.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +19.9
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 32.7m -18.5
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 10.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.2

Flawless weak-side rotations and timely helpside defense translated to an elite defensive rating. He capitalized on transition opportunities by running the floor hard, finishing efficiently without needing plays called for him. His length completely disrupted the opponent's passing lanes during a decisive second-half run.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +29.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.4
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 19.4m -11.1
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

A lack of physical engagement on the margins kept his overall impact muted despite capable shot-making. He failed to box out consistently, allowing second-chance points that offset his perimeter spacing. Floating on the perimeter without generating defensive pressure defined a rather pedestrian shift.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 19.2m -10.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Dru Smith 15.6m
5
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

Off-the-charts hustle metrics drove his positive score, as he relentlessly pursued long rebounds and 50/50 balls. Despite getting targeted occasionally in isolation defense, his sheer effort level created extra possessions for the offense. A pair of crucial diving saves out of bounds perfectly encapsulated his scrappy impact.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +57.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +8.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 15.6m -8.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 41.0m
14
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
-12.6

Disastrous shot selection completely tanked his overall value, highlighted by a steady stream of forced, contested looks from deep. Bricking a high volume of attempts created constant transition opportunities for the opponent, erasing any positives from his rebounding effort. His inability to finish through contact in the paint defined a highly damaging offensive shift.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 41.0m -23.3
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Kon Knueppel 40.1m
30
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

The massive gap between his raw production and actual impact stems from severe inefficiency, as throwing away possessions on missed jumpers killed offensive momentum. Heavy volume from the perimeter defined his usage, but the empty trips limited his overall value. Solid defensive positioning kept him in the green despite the erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 40.1m -22.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Tre Mann 35.4m
20
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
-12.7

A classic case of volume masking destruction, as his staggering number of empty possessions cratered the team's offensive rating. He settled for contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock, consistently bailing out the defense. This erratic shot selection fueled a negative feedback loop that overshadowed his playmaking flashes.

Shooting
FG 7/24 (29.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.7
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 35.4m -20.2
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Sion James 32.9m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.5

Hidden mistakes destroyed his net rating, with costly live-ball turnovers and poor defensive rotations bleeding points. A pattern of late closeouts on the perimeter allowed open rhythm jumpers, compounding his negative value. Even with average shooting efficiency, his inability to execute defensive schemes rendered him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 32.9m -18.7
Impact -14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.3

Elite rim protection drove a highly positive shift, anchoring the interior defense with disciplined verticality. He maximized his offensive touches by strictly taking high-percentage looks around the basket, avoiding empty possessions. A crucial stretch of second-half drop coverage completely neutralized the opponent's pick-and-roll attack.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.1
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 27.2m -15.6
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
10
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.7

Relentless energy on the glass and elite screen-setting generated immense value in limited minutes. He thrived by knowing his role perfectly, generating second-chance opportunities through sheer physical exertion in the paint. His ability to consistently win 50/50 balls defined a highly productive stint as the backup big.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.5
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 21.6m -12.3
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Struggles to navigate screens on the perimeter allowed dribble penetration, slightly offsetting his spot-up spacing. He functioned primarily as a decoy on offense, but a few rushed closeouts led to unnecessary foul calls. A quiet sequence in the second quarter where he lost his man back-door highlighted his off-ball defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 19.3m -11.0
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 12.6m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Offensive invisibility dragged his score down, as he failed to bend the defense or capitalize on open driving lanes. Despite putting up solid point-of-attack resistance, his inability to convert at the rim resulted in empty trips. His shift was defined by passive playmaking that stalled the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -52.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 12.6m -7.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Invisible in the hustle metrics, his brief stint was largely a wash on both ends of the floor. He failed to generate any defensive disruption, allowing ball-handlers to operate comfortably in his airspace. A lack of lateral quickness against younger wings defined his rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -81.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 9.9m -5.7
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1