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

Share Post

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Pelle Larsson 30.7m
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.5

Continued a streak of highly efficient performances by punishing defensive lapses with timely cuts and confident perimeter shooting. His constant off-ball movement created chaos for the opposition, generating high-quality looks. Active hands on defense further cemented a thoroughly positive two-way outing.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bam Adebayo 30.3m
26
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.9

Broke out of a recent slump by aggressively attacking the mid-range and stretching the floor with unexpected perimeter success. His offensive versatility kept the opposing bigs off-balance all night. Paired with his usual switchability on defense, he controlled the tempo of the game from the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.5
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 29.7m
8
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
-9.2

Elite point-of-attack defense and excellent playmaking were ultimately dragged down by a complete inability to connect from deep. Defenders sagged off him entirely, which bogged down half-court sets and neutralized his passing lanes. The spacing issues he created outweighed his tenacious hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +3.4
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 29.7m
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.3

Delivered a masterclass in two-way wing play, suffocating primary ball-handlers while punishing closeouts on the other end. His aggressive downhill drives forced the defense into constant rotation, opening up the perimeter. A dominant defensive stance set the tone for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Scoring +15.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 26.7m
14
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Settled for too many outside shots instead of leveraging his size in the paint, leading to a slew of empty possessions. The poor shot selection short-circuited offensive momentum and fueled opponent run-outs. Despite decent rebounding numbers, his inefficiency severely hampered the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.1%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +7.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
28
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+15.4

Carved up the defense with elite footwork in the post and decisive drives to the rim. His ability to consistently generate high-percentage looks anchored the offense during crucial stretches. Smart positional defense and timely rotations ensured his massive offensive output translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +61.5
+/- +43
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +24.2
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +4.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
10
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Showcased smooth offensive execution in transition, but struggled to make a definitive impact in the half-court. His defensive rotations were occasionally a half-step slow, allowing opponents to find gaps in the zone. The efficient scoring kept him above water, though his overall footprint remained light.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

Broke out of a shooting slump by confidently stepping into catch-and-shoot opportunities from the perimeter. His gravity as a floor spacer opened up driving lanes for the primary creators. Solid team defense and timely closeouts ensured his offensive contributions resulted in a net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.9%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +51.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.0
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Dru Smith 15.6m
5
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.0

Provided steady, mistake-free minutes as a secondary creator, keeping the offense organized without forcing the issue. His defensive positioning was rock solid, preventing easy penetration from opposing guards. A perfectly executed role-player stint that kept the team afloat while starters rested.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +33.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.4

Made the most of a brief cameo by burying his only perimeter look to keep the offense ticking. Defensive limitations were hidden by the short stint on the floor. A quick burst of scoring that provided a marginal boost before heading back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Blended into the background during a short stint, managing one successful finish but otherwise failing to influence the game. His lack of hustle stats indicates a passive approach on both ends of the floor. Ultimately, his minutes were functional but slightly detrimental to the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.7m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.4

Failed to assert himself during limited garbage-time minutes, looking hesitant to initiate the offense. Opposing guards easily bypassed his initial point-of-attack defense. The lack of aggression left him as a slight negative in a very small sample size.

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 2.7m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 31.0m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Poor shot selection and forced attempts in traffic dragged his overall impact into the red. Despite showing resistance on the defensive end, his inability to find a rhythm offensively stalled out multiple possessions. The resulting empty trips allowed the opposition to build momentum in transition.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.2

Dominated the interior with flawless execution around the rim and elite rim protection. His defensive presence completely altered the geometry of the floor, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. Capitalized on every pick-and-roll opportunity to maximize his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +4.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
S LaMelo Ball 28.5m
20
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.4

A heavy volume of contested deep attempts severely damaged offensive flow and led to long rebounds for the opponent. While he generated looks for teammates, the sheer number of wasted possessions capped the team's ceiling. His defensive effort was adequate, but the erratic shot diet proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring +11.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -10.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kon Knueppel 27.2m
19
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.0

Kept the offense humming with a steady barrage of perimeter shots, capitalizing on defensive rotations. However, his overall impact was muted by defensive lapses that allowed opponents to match his production. A strong shooting rhythm was offset by struggles navigating screens on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +12.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Collin Sexton 26.9m
18
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.3

Scoring efficiency was overshadowed by defensive vulnerabilities at the point of attack. Opposing guards consistently exploited his positioning, negating the value of his highly efficient offensive output. While he found his spots on offense, the defensive bleed kept his net impact negative.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -9.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Tre Mann 26.9m
8
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.1

Offensive impact cratered due to a disastrous shooting night characterized by forced drives and off-balance jumpers. Even though he brought commendable energy and defensive pressure to the perimeter, the volume of missed shots constantly put his team in transition defense. The inability to convert open looks ultimately tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 26.7%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -49.2
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Sion James 23.3m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Maximized a low-usage role by perfectly executing spot-up opportunities and maintaining disciplined defensive rotations. His flawless shooting provided a timely spark without disrupting the offensive hierarchy. Consistent hustle plays in the passing lanes further boosted his positive contribution.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 138.9%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -27.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Provided a stabilizing presence in the frontcourt with high-energy rebounding and efficient finishing. His impact hovered near neutral as his limited offensive role prevented him from taking over the game. Still, his fundamental execution on the glass ensured extra possessions when it mattered.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Struggled to find his footing offensively, rushing his perimeter looks and failing to bend the defense. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint for his teammates. While he battled on the boards, the offensive zeroes made it hard to justify extended minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Scoring +0.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.3

Flashed brief offensive utility with a quick perimeter strike, but struggled to stay connected on the defensive end. Opponents quickly identified him as a target in isolation, neutralizing his scoring contribution. His overall impact suffered from an inability to consistently navigate screens.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 108.7%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0