GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Tyler Herro 32.4m
29
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.4

Blistering scoring efficiency and high-level playmaking resulted in a massive positive impact score. He manipulated defensive coverages effortlessly, finding the perfect balance between attacking the rim and distributing to open shooters. A dominant stretch of pick-and-roll mastery defined his game, as he consistently punished drop coverages with deadly pull-up jumpers.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.1
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 32.4m -16.8
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Andrew Wiggins 31.3m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Poor shot selection from the perimeter cratered his offensive efficiency and pushed his overall impact into the red. He remained engaged defensively and on the hustle charts, but his constant misfires frequently stalled out the team's momentum. A frustrating pattern of settling for early-clock, contested threes defined his night, consistently bailing out the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -7.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 31.3m -16.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Norman Powell 28.9m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.7

A brutal shooting slump from beyond the arc heavily penalized his offensive value and dragged his net score down. While he provided solid defensive effort to mitigate some of the damage, his inability to space the floor clogged the half-court offense. Forcing heavily contested perimeter looks in an attempt to break out of his slump defined this highly inefficient performance.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.6%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -20.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 28.9m -15.0
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Davion Mitchell 28.8m
2
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-7.2

A complete refusal to look for his own shot severely damaged his overall impact, despite his ability to set up teammates. His point-of-attack defense was characteristically strong, but playing four-on-five offensively allowed opponents to aggressively trap the primary scorers. Operating as an extreme pass-first liability defined his minutes, ultimately destroying the team's floor spacing in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 28.8m -14.8
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Bam Adebayo 28.6m
17
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite defensive metrics drove his positive impact, as he completely shut down the paint and disrupted opponent pick-and-rolls. His offensive efficiency was hampered by uncharacteristic three-point attempts, but his sheer volume of stops easily offset the missed shots. Serving as an impenetrable defensive anchor defined his performance, constantly erasing breakdowns from his perimeter teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.6
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 28.6m -14.8
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Kel'el Ware 26.0m
11
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Exceptional defensive presence and highly efficient finishing around the rim drove a stellar net impact score. Maximizing his limited touches, he converted high-percentage lobs and putbacks while simultaneously anchoring the paint on the other end. Elite rim protection defined his performance, as he consistently altered shots and deterred drivers from even entering the lane.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +8.7
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 26.0m -13.6
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

A sharp decline in shooting efficiency was offset by tremendous defensive effort and hustle plays, keeping his net score above water. Struggling to find his rhythm from deep snapped a recent hot streak, but he compensated by fighting through screens and closing out hard on shooters. Gritty perimeter defense defined his night, proving he can impact winning even when his jumper isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 21.0m -10.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Dru Smith 19.2m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.1

Off-the-charts defensive and hustle metrics fueled a highly positive impact despite pedestrian scoring numbers. Generating crucial extra possessions by diving for loose balls and disrupting passing lanes made him invaluable on the floor. Relentless ball pressure against the opposing second unit defined his stint, completely changing the energy of the game without needing offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +6.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 19.2m -9.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.9

Efficient, opportunistic scoring in limited minutes kept his overall impact firmly in the positive. While his defensive and hustle contributions were relatively muted, his ability to exploit mismatches in the mid-post kept the offense humming. Puncturing the defense with timely backdoor cuts defined his shift, proving highly effective as an off-ball connector.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 17.0m -8.8
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

A very brief cameo yielded a slightly negative impact due to a lack of meaningful involvement on either end of the floor. He failed to register any significant defensive stops or hustle plays to swing the momentum during his rotation. Being largely invisible during his short stint defined this performance, as the game simply flowed around him without his direct influence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -14.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 6.8m -3.5
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 41.1m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.0

High usage masked a severely inefficient shooting night, particularly from beyond the arc where he wasted numerous offensive possessions. Excellent hustle and defensive metrics kept his impact near neutral, proving he remained engaged on the margins despite the cold shooting. A relentless but reckless green light defined this outing, as he forced contested looks early in the shot clock rather than moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 4/14 (28.6%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 41.1m -21.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S AJ Green 36.3m
12
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.8

Elite perimeter efficiency drove a massive positive impact, as he maximized his touches by punishing late defensive rotations. His strong defensive metrics (+6.6) suggest he held his own on the wing, likely funneling drivers into help defense rather than getting beat off the dribble. A flawless catch-and-shoot rhythm defined his night, allowing him to warp the floor without dominating possession.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.6
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 36.3m -18.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Gary Trent Jr. 34.7m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Heavy reliance on the three-ball yielded mixed results, as poor inside-the-arc finishing dragged down his overall efficiency and net score. Despite strong defensive metrics suggesting good point-of-attack pressure, the sheer volume of missed perimeter shots stifled his team's offensive momentum. A highly predictable shot profile defined his night, allowing defenders to aggressively run him off the line without fear of the drive.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.6
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 34.7m -18.0
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 31.2m
24
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

A massive interior scoring surge fueled his high net impact, breaking out of a recent slump by dominating the paint rather than settling for threes. Strong hustle metrics indicate excellent rim-running and screen-setting, which consistently compromised the opposing drop coverage. Punishing smaller defenders in the post defined his performance, completely shifting the offensive geometry for his team.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 31.2m -16.1
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 29.3m
8
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
-6.0

Subpar scoring efficiency and a complete lack of perimeter volume dragged his overall impact into the red. While he secured the defensive glass effectively, his inability to stretch the floor allowed the opposition to pack the paint against driving teammates. A pattern of settling for contested mid-range jumpers rather than attacking the rim ultimately capped his offensive value.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 29.3m -15.2
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 20.9m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Poor shot selection and bricked perimeter looks severely limited his effectiveness during his rotation minutes. He provided decent defensive resistance on the interior, but the wasted offensive possessions consistently stalled out the second unit's rhythm. Forcing contested mid-post turnarounds against set defenses was the defining flaw of his stint, bleeding value on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.2%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 20.9m -10.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Gary Harris 18.6m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

Extreme passivity on offense dragged his overall impact into the negative despite decent efficiency on his rare shot attempts. He offered marginal defensive resistance on the perimeter, but his reluctance to shoot allowed defenders to aggressively sag into the driving lanes. Being completely ignored by the opposing defensive scheme defined his night, effectively forcing his team to play four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -41.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 18.6m -9.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jericho Sims 16.8m
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Low usage but perfect efficiency allowed him to maintain a slightly positive net impact during his reserve minutes. He anchored the paint effectively on defense, deterring drives without fouling to stabilize the second unit. Serving as a reliable vertical spacing threat defined his stint, keeping the offense flowing smoothly without demanding post touches.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 16.8m -8.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Cole Anthony 11.1m
2
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.3

A disastrous shooting performance completely tanked his impact score during a brief stint on the floor. Failing to generate any meaningful rim pressure, he settled for contested jumpers that frequently fueled opponent transition opportunities. An inability to break down his primary defender off the dribble defined this rough outing, rendering him a severe offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 11.1m -5.8
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2