Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIA lead CLE lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
CLE 2P — 3P —
MIA 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 218 attempts

CLE CLE Shot-making Δ

Mitchell Hard 10/28 -4.9
Hunter Hard 9/19 +1.5
Merrill Hard 4/16 -3.3
Mobley 8/15 +2.8
Tyson Hard 3/10 -2.8
Allen Open 6/9 +2.0
Garland Hard 2/9 -3.9
Ball Hard 3/7 +1.9
Wade Hard 3/5 +3.4
Porter Jr. 1/2 -0.2

MIA MIA Shot-making Δ

Powell Hard 8/19 +1.1
Ware Open 7/14 -2.6
Wiggins Hard 8/13 +5.4
Jaquez Jr. 7/12 +3.1
Jović Hard 3/10 -2.5
Fontecchio Hard 4/9 +1.8
Mitchell Hard 4/9 +0.6
Larsson 4/8 -0.6
Smith Hard 1/4 -0.7
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
CLE
MIA
49/120 Field Goals 46/98
40.8% Field Goal % 46.9%
21/65 3-Pointers 12/36
32.3% 3-Point % 33.3%
19/27 Free Throws 36/41
70.4% Free Throw % 87.8%
52.3% True Shooting % 60.3%
68 Total Rebounds 69
26 Offensive 12
34 Defensive 44
26 Assists 32
2.60 Assist/TO Ratio 2.29
7 Turnovers 14
8 Steals 5
4 Blocks 6
27 Fouls 27
50 Points in Paint 66
11 Fast Break Pts 23
20 Points off TOs 13
29 Second Chance Pts 20
41 Bench Points 49
10 Largest Lead 15
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
22 PTS · 13 REB · 7 AST · 33.3 MIN
+25.05
2
Kel'el Ware
14 PTS · 20 REB · 1 AST · 33.6 MIN
+23.37
3
Norman Powell
33 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 38.6 MIN
+22.78
4
Donovan Mitchell
28 PTS · 15 REB · 8 AST · 40.9 MIN
+22.39
5
Andrew Wiggins
23 PTS · 2 REB · 5 AST · 37.4 MIN
+18.77
6
Evan Mobley
21 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 38.7 MIN
+18.38
7
Jaylon Tyson
9 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 31.1 MIN
+15.72
8
De'Andre Hunter
23 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 35.3 MIN
+14.42
9
Jarrett Allen
14 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 20.9 MIN
+11.69
10
Darius Garland
11 PTS · 5 REB · 2 AST · 18.9 MIN
+11.15
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q5 0:00 A. Wiggins alley-oop DUNK (23 PTS) (N. Jović 4 AST) 138–140
Q5 0:00 D. Mitchell 3PT turnaround fadeaway (28 PTS) 138–138
Q5 0:01 D. Mitchell REBOUND (Off:5 Def:10) 135–138
Q5 0:05 MISS S. Merrill fadeaway 3PT 135–138
Q5 0:06 N. Powell Free Throw 2 of 2 (33 PTS) 135–138
Q5 0:06 N. Powell Free Throw 1 of 2 (32 PTS) 135–137
Q5 0:06 D. Wade personal FOUL (3 PF) (Powell 2 FT) 135–136
Q5 0:07 TEAM offensive REBOUND 135–136
Q5 0:07 MISS N. Powell away-from-play Free Throw 1 of 1 135–136
Q5 0:07 J. Tyson away-from-play personal FOUL (3 PF) (Powell 1 FT) 135–136
Q5 0:07 D. Hunter Free Throw 2 of 2 (23 PTS) 135–136
Q5 0:07 D. Hunter Free Throw 1 of 2 (22 PTS) 134–136
Q5 0:07 N. Powell personal FOUL (4 PF) (Hunter 2 FT) 133–136
Q5 0:08 D. Mitchell REBOUND (Off:4 Def:10) 133–136
Q5 0:11 MISS S. Merrill 26' 3PT 133–136

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

MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 38.6m
33
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.1

Carried the scoring burden with relentless isolation attacks, though the high volume of difficult attempts slightly suppressed his overall efficiency. He maintained a positive impact by competing hard on 50/50 balls and avoiding defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Scoring +24.5
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 38.2m
11
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
-11.8

A disastrous stint running the offense, marred by telegraphed passes that ignited opponent fast breaks. His usually stout point-of-attack defense vanished, allowing opposing guards to dictate the tempo and live in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Andrew Wiggins 37.4m
23
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.0

Found tremendous success attacking closeouts and finishing through contact at the rim. His impact was slightly capped by a few careless passes in traffic, but his aggressive downhill mentality kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kel'el Ware 33.6m
14
pts
20
reb
1
ast
Impact
+22.9

Completely monopolized the paint, altering countless shots and ending defensive possessions with dominant rebounding. His rim-running gravity forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Scoring +9.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +24.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Pelle Larsson 26.5m
10
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-11.8

Bleeding value through poor spatial awareness on defense, he repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts. Despite efficient finishing when he got the ball, his inability to secure defensive rebounds or stop the ball in transition tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
22
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+24.8

Operated as a masterful secondary playmaker, dissecting the defense from the high post with elite footwork. His phenomenal instincts as a help defender blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions, driving a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Scoring +18.9
Creation +2.9
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +14.6
Defense +2.8
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.0

Settled for contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock, completely stalling the team's offensive flow. Compounding the poor shot selection were several missed rotations on the weak side that resulted in wide-open corner looks.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +2.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.0
Hustle +10.2
Defense -3.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Delivered a crucial scoring punch off the bench by relocating perfectly along the perimeter to find soft spots in the zone. While his defensive footprint was minimal, his timely shot-making stretched the floor when the primary offense stagnated.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Scoring +8.9
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +3.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Dru Smith 14.8m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Failed to generate any rim pressure during his minutes, settling for low-percentage looks that bailed out the defense. A lack of physicality on the perimeter allowed opponents to easily play through him.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
28
pts
15
reb
8
ast
Impact
+20.4

Shot selection was highly erratic, as a barrage of forced pull-up threes severely capped his offensive efficiency despite the high usage. However, he salvaged his overall impact by crashing the glass relentlessly and generating crucial deflections in the passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 10/28 (35.7%)
3PT 3/16 (18.8%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Scoring +14.6
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +6.5
Hustle +16.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Evan Mobley 38.7m
21
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+12.3

Offensive efficiency remained elite with another highly efficient shooting night from the floor, but his overall impact was muted by defensive lapses in pick-and-roll coverage. A handful of costly offensive fouls on moving screens further dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/7 (28.6%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Scoring +13.2
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +12.7
Defense -2.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S De'Andre Hunter 35.3m
23
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.2

Impact plummeted despite decent scoring volume due to a heavy diet of contested perimeter misses and likely live-ball turnovers that fueled transition run-outs. He struggled to contain dribble penetration on the wing, yielding easy driving lanes that negated his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +16.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jarrett Allen 20.9m
14
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Anchored the interior masterfully by altering shots at the rim and dominating his individual post matchups. His refusal to force bad shots kept the offense flowing, while his vertical spacing created consistent gravity in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 67.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Scoring +11.7
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Darius Garland 18.9m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

A passive offensive approach and inability to create separation off the dribble limited his playmaking footprint. He managed to stay in the positive by navigating screens effectively on defense and avoiding costly live-ball mistakes.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.3%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Sam Merrill 32.6m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.5

Absolutely cratered the team's momentum by continuously firing contested, early-clock triples that led to long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter compounded the damage from his shooting slump.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 4/16 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylon Tyson 31.1m
9
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Overcame a rough shooting night by making his presence felt as a high-motor disruptor on the defensive end. His willingness to dive for loose balls and fight through off-ball screens set a physical tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +10.5
Defense +6.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
Dean Wade 21.6m
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Capitalized on defensive rotations by punishing late closeouts with confident catch-and-shoot execution. He supplied steady weak-side help defense, ensuring the frontcourt rotation didn't miss a beat while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Scoring +7.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense -2.9
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Lonzo Ball 19.5m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Provided excellent connective tissue on offense by quickly moving the ball and taking only high-value spot-up opportunities. His point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's timing, keeping his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense -2.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a brief stint, getting caught out of position on a couple of defensive rotations. The short leash prevented him from establishing any meaningful positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -54.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0