Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
NYK lead MIA lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIA 2P — 3P —
NYK 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 199 attempts

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Powell Hard 12/22 +9.0
Jaquez Jr. Open 9/20 -6.2
Wiggins 6/18 -7.8
Larsson Hard 4/8 +2.9
Ware Open 5/8 +1.1
Fontecchio Hard 3/7 +1.9
Mitchell Hard 3/6 +1.6
Jović 1/4 -2.5
Smith Open 1/1 +0.6
Johnson Open 0/1 -1.4

NYK NYK Shot-making Δ

Towns 13/26 +4.1
Bridges Hard 6/21 -7.4
Shamet 12/19 +7.8
Clarkson 6/13 +0.6
McBride Hard 4/10 -0.8
Hart Open 5/8 +1.2
Anunoby 1/4 -2.7
Robinson Open 0/2 -2.8
Yabusele Hard 1/1 +2.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIA
NYK
44/95 Field Goals 48/104
46.3% Field Goal % 46.2%
19/44 3-Pointers 21/53
43.2% 3-Point % 39.6%
25/34 Free Throws 23/29
73.5% Free Throw % 79.3%
60.0% True Shooting % 60.0%
61 Total Rebounds 63
15 Offensive 20
31 Defensive 31
30 Assists 32
2.73 Assist/TO Ratio 4.00
11 Turnovers 8
4 Steals 9
5 Blocks 2
23 Fouls 23
48 Points in Paint 50
14 Fast Break Pts 7
10 Points off TOs 19
23 Second Chance Pts 20
39 Bench Points 75
7 Largest Lead 15
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Karl-Anthony Towns
39 PTS · 11 REB · 4 AST · 38.0 MIN
+33.37
2
Norman Powell
38 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 32.9 MIN
+28.88
3
Landry Shamet
36 PTS · 2 REB · 3 AST · 37.3 MIN
+28.84
4
Jordan Clarkson
24 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 33.2 MIN
+20.85
5
Mikal Bridges
15 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 42.4 MIN
+20.64
6
Kel'el Ware
15 PTS · 10 REB · 1 AST · 35.0 MIN
+19.74
7
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
23 PTS · 9 REB · 7 AST · 34.2 MIN
+16.14
8
Davion Mitchell
11 PTS · 4 REB · 11 AST · 33.3 MIN
+12.27
9
Josh Hart
12 PTS · 12 REB · 10 AST · 33.6 MIN
+11.66
10
Pelle Larsson
14 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 24.0 MIN
+9.41
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 J. Hart REBOUND (Off:1 Def:11) 132–140
Q4 0:01 K. Ware BLOCK (3 BLK) 132–140
Q4 0:01 MISS K. Towns 24' 3PT - blocked 132–140
Q4 0:03 N. Powell driving Layup (38 PTS) 132–140
Q4 0:08 K. Ware REBOUND (Off:2 Def:8) 130–140
Q4 0:12 MISS M. Bridges 26' 3PT 130–140
Q4 0:19 J. Jaquez Jr. driving Layup (23 PTS) (D. Mitchell 11 AST) 130–140
Q4 0:22 TEAM offensive REBOUND 128–140
Q4 0:22 MISS A. Wiggins tip Layup 128–140
Q4 0:24 A. Wiggins REBOUND (Off:5 Def:2) 128–140
Q4 0:25 MISS J. Jaquez Jr. driving finger roll Layup 128–140
Q4 0:30 J. Hart running DUNK (12 PTS) 128–140
Q4 0:31 J. Hart REBOUND (Off:0 Def:11) 128–138
Q4 0:32 MISS A. Wiggins tip Layup 128–138
Q4 0:32 A. Wiggins REBOUND (Off:4 Def:2) 128–138

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 42.4m
15
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.5

A suffocating defensive masterclass completely erased his primary assignment, generating a staggering +24.5 defensive metric. That elite perimeter lockdown and relentless hustle salvaged his value on a night where his jump shot was completely broken.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 3/12 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.4m
Scoring +2.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +16.0
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 7
BLK 2
TO 2
39
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+34.5

Utterly dismantled the opposing frontcourt by stretching the floor with lethal pick-and-pop execution. His commanding presence in the paint forced double-teams, while active rim contests solidified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 13/26 (50.0%)
3PT 6/14 (42.9%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Scoring +28.4
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +8.8
Hustle +9.1
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Miles McBride 29.9m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

Poor shot selection from the perimeter consistently bailed out the opposing defense and triggered fast breaks going the other way. His struggles to navigate screens defensively further compounded a highly damaging shift.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.6

Dominating the glass wasn't enough to overcome his offensive limitations, as his inability to finish around the basket stalled multiple possessions. Opponents successfully neutralized his rim-running threat, turning him into an offensive liability despite the extra possessions he generated.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -26.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring -1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +12.7
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -6.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 5.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

An unusually brief outing was marred by forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that failed to connect. He never found his defensive footing before heading to the bench, resulting in a mildly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
36
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+22.8

Punished drop coverage all night with a blistering display of off-screen shooting. His constant off-ball motion warped the defense, creating a massive offensive surplus that easily covered his average defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +14.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Scoring +30.5
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +7.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Hart 33.6m
12
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
-2.9

Careless ball security destroyed his otherwise stellar playmaking, as a string of live-ball turnovers directly fed the opponent's transition attack. Despite his trademark rebounding energy, those critical mistakes in the half-court completely cratered his net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +0.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +9.3
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 44.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
24
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.7

Manufactured crucial points out of broken plays, utilizing his isolation scoring to keep the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. However, his total impact was muted by a complete lack of defensive resistance and minimal effort on loose balls.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Scoring +17.1
Creation +2.1
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +6.3
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.9

Slow defensive rotations during his brief stint allowed opponents to capitalize on open corner looks. His perfect shooting mark couldn't mask the defensive bleeding that occurred while he anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Checked in for a singular dead-ball situation at the end of a quarter. He accumulated zero measurable impact in his two seconds of action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0m
Scoring +1.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -1.6
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 35.6m
15
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

An abysmal shot profile completely torpedoed his overall value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock. While his activity on the glass and loose ball recoveries provided a solid hustle metric, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged the team down.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.7%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +3.3
Hustle +7.9
Defense -3.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Kel'el Ware 35.0m
15
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+13.2

Anchored the interior with exceptional rim protection, driving a massive defensive rating that deterred opponents from the paint. His selective, high-percentage finishing around the basket perfectly complemented his relentless effort on second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Scoring +12.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +8.8
Defense +1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 33.3m
11
pts
4
reb
11
ast
Impact
-1.5

Elite point-of-attack pressure and constant loose-ball recoveries fueled a phenomenal hustle score. He operated as a pure facilitator on offense, though his reluctance to look for his own shot slightly capped his overall offensive ceiling.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Norman Powell 32.9m
38
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+25.0

Scorching perimeter execution broke the opposing defense's back, generating massive offensive value through high-volume catch-and-shoot looks. His pure scoring gravity opened up the floor, completely offsetting his lack of playmaking creation for others.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 8/15 (53.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Scoring +29.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +9.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 24.0m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.3

Despite spacing the floor effectively from the perimeter, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive rotations that allowed open driving lanes. A handful of costly live-ball turnovers negated the value of his efficient spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
23
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.4

Forcing the issue in isolation sets led to a slew of empty trips and transition opportunities for the opponent. Even though he filled up the traditional stat sheet, the sheer number of clanked mid-range pull-ups severely dented his net impact.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Scoring +12.1
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +4.1
Hustle +9.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 14.7m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

Provided a spark of energy with timely deflections and solid rotational awareness on the defensive end. However, his extreme passivity on offense allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint, stalling the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Operating strictly as a stationary floor spacer limited his ability to influence the game beyond the arc. A lack of secondary playmaking and defensive rebounding allowed opponents to exploit his side of the floor repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -33.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-19.7

Bleeding points on the defensive end, he struggled to stay in front of quicker wings during his brief stint on the floor. Errant passes and rushed perimeter attempts further compounded a highly detrimental shift.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +0.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +2.2
Defense -6.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.6

A fleeting appearance yielded virtually no statistical footprint outside of a single missed attempt at the rim. He simply did not log enough floor time to establish any rhythm or meaningful impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -76.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0