GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Andrew Wiggins 33.1m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.4

Settled for heavily contested midrange fadeaways that bailed out the defense and disrupted offensive flow. While he provided solid on-ball resistance on the other end, his clunky shot profile and forced isolations ultimately dragged the lineup down.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.6%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 33.1m -22.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Norman Powell 30.1m
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Provided essential rim pressure by attacking closeouts with relentless aggression, generating crucial free throw trips. The underlying value of those drives was partially masked by a cold streak from the perimeter, but his downhill mentality kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 30.1m -20.6
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Pelle Larsson 27.4m
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.7

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by aggressively cutting baseline for high-percentage finishes. His pristine shot selection maximized his offensive touches, though a couple of late-clock defensive lapses prevented his rating from soaring higher.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 27.4m -18.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 25.8m
11
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.1

Completely derailed the opposing offensive scheme with suffocating ball pressure that blew up multiple handoff actions. His decisive playmaking in the halfcourt capitalized on the chaos he created defensively, resulting in a highly impactful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +6.1
Defense +9.8
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 25.8m -17.7
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kel'el Ware 22.9m
9
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage that routinely forced opposing guards into difficult floaters. He secured the defensive glass with authority, ensuring that successful stops translated directly into clean transition runouts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 22.9m -15.6
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
29
pts
9
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.6

Exploited mismatches in the post and stretched the floor with supreme confidence, serving as the primary offensive engine. His timely weakside blocks showcased a growing defensive awareness that perfectly complemented his diverse scoring arsenal.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.3%
USG% 30.5%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.0
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 31.4m -21.5
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
14
pts
12
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.8

Bogged down the offense by repeatedly driving into crowded paint areas, leading to blocked shots and live-ball turnovers. Despite putting together a rugged defensive shift, his tunnel vision on the block severely limited the unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 29.1m -20.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 22.3m
13
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+13.3

Operated with surgical precision as a secondary creator, consistently finding the roll man while avoiding risky passes. His phenomenal screen navigation on defense completely neutralized the opponent's primary pick-and-roll attack, driving a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.4
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 22.3m -15.1
Impact +13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Punctured the zone defense with timely spot-up shooting from the perimeter, but gave the production right back on the other end. Opposing wings relentlessly targeted his slow lateral slides, turning him into an isolation target that outweighed his floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 17.8m -12.1
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Toumani Camara 39.2m
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-15.9

Bricklaying from the perimeter absolutely cratered his overall value despite tremendous effort on the margins. He generated extra possessions through relentless offensive rebounding, but those gains were instantly negated by a steady stream of clanked above-the-break threes.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/13 (23.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.2%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -14.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +9.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 39.2m -26.8
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Deni Avdija 36.5m
33
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.1

Relentless downhill pressure yielded a massive scoring surge that carried the offensive unit. His ability to collapse the defense created high-value looks, though a handful of forced passes into the paint kept his overall impact from reaching elite territory.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 24.8%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +24.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 36.5m -24.9
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jrue Holiday 34.9m
18
pts
9
reb
13
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elite point-of-attack defense and brilliant table-setting salvaged a night where his jumper simply refused to fall. He dictated the tempo perfectly in the pick-and-roll, offsetting his icy shooting splits by consistently spoon-feeding cutters and locking down the opposing primary creator.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +10.2
Raw total +26.0
Avg player in 34.9m -23.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Shaedon Sharpe 28.2m
21
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc heavily taxed the offense and dragged his net rating into the red. While his explosive transition finishing provided a baseline of value, settling for contested pull-up jumpers early in the shot clock stalled out halfcourt momentum.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 51.7%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +6.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 28.2m -19.4
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Donovan Clingan 20.9m
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+15.6

Dominated the interior with vertical spacing and elite rim deterrence that completely altered the opponent's shot profile. His massive defensive footprint snuffed out multiple driving lanes, while efficient finishing on rolls to the basket anchored a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +5.9
Defense +6.3
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 20.9m -14.2
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Jerami Grant 22.1m
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

A lack of off-ball engagement and poor weakside rotations allowed opponents to exploit his defensive matchups. Even though he scored efficiently in isolation sets, his inability to secure contested rebounds or generate deflections resulted in a net negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -33.1
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.2
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 22.1m -15.2
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Kris Murray 21.7m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.2

Struggled to find a rhythm within the flow of the offense, frequently stalling ball movement with hesitant decision-making. Defensive miscommunications on perimeter switches further compounded his struggles, allowing open driving lanes that bled points.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -36.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.7
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 21.7m -14.8
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Sidy Cissoko 17.3m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Overzealous closeouts and undisciplined fouling negated the energy he brought in transition. He forced the issue on out-of-control drives, squandering possessions that the secondary unit desperately needed to convert.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 17.3m -11.8
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 11.6m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Stretched the floor effectively as a trail big, knocking down pick-and-pop looks to punish drop coverage. However, his inability to anchor the defensive glass against physical matchups allowed costly second-chance opportunities that slightly outweighed his shooting contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -63.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.6
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 11.6m -8.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Provided a brief but effective defensive spark by blowing up consecutive pick-and-roll actions. His sheer presence in the paint deterred rim attempts during his short stint, though a lack of offensive involvement kept his overall influence muted.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 7.5m -5.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0