GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 38.6m
33
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.7

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
Offense +22.5
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 38.6m -24.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
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
-18.0

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
Offense +1.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 38.2m -23.8
Impact -18.0
How is this calculated?
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
+3.9

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
Offense +17.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 37.4m -23.3
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
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
+11.5

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
Offense +17.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.3
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 33.6m -20.9
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
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
-8.8

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
Offense +3.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 26.5m -16.6
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
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
+12.7

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
Offense +18.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +9.9
Raw total +33.5
Avg player in 33.3m -20.8
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
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
-10.8

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
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 26.3m -16.4
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
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
+2.1

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
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 16.2m -10.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
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
-4.5

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
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 14.8m -9.2
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
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
+6.9

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
Offense +20.6
Hustle +6.6
Defense +5.2
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 40.9m -25.5
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
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
+0.9

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
Offense +19.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 38.7m -24.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
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
-3.2

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
Offense +14.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 35.3m -22.0
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
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
+6.5

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
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.9
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 20.9m -13.1
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
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
+2.4

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
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 18.9m -11.8
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
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
-14.3

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
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 32.6m -20.4
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
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
+4.9

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
Offense +9.3
Hustle +6.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 31.1m -19.3
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
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
+2.4

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
Offense +8.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 21.6m -13.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
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
+3.7

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
Offense +9.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 19.5m -12.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
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
-1.3

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
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 5.4m -3.4
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0